Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there are no changes

[James Blackwell]

>> > IMHO it should complain that there are no changes and
>> > exit(-1), what it it good for generating an empty
>> > patch-set.  (o.k. there is a log in the patch-set but
>> > nothing else ;-/)
>> 
>> Not so. :) 
>> 
>> Here's two reasons: 
>> 
>> 1. This provides a mechanism for adding a note to the patchlogs
>>    without having to make a nonsense patch. (For example, 'blaming')
>> 
>> 2. If you get stuck in a position where you need to
>>    cacherev, but you don't have any code that you actually
>>    need to change, you can do an 'empty commit' to push a
>>    cacherev to a mirror.
>
> O.k. while this sounds reasonable to me I still think those
> two are not the default situation and I would prefer being
> asked before unless I use a --force switch.

Of course those are the common reasons. The two most likely cases are: 

1) You have *just* made changes to the tree, and you know you want to
commit

2) You come across a working copy that you haven't worked in for awhile.
You can't remember what, if any changes are there. You need to run tla
what-changed, in order to figure out if anything changed and if so,
what.

What kind of commit logs would you make in which you're unsure about
what has changed in your tree (simple logic dictates that if you're
complaining about "empty commits", you didn't know what you were
committing in the first place)

This is a simple case in whidch you're being shown that you're making
stupid mistakes up front, while the cost is "low", and helps you build
the habits to work properly. :)

-- 
James Blackwell          Please do not send me carbon copies of mailing
Smile more!              list posts. Such mail is unsolicited. Thank you!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400