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

[William Dode]

Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:

> Julian T. J. Midgley wrote:
>>> Perhaps you could explain why the defaults are unwise?  What's the
>>> harm in an accidental empty commit, aside from a little
>>> embarassment?
>> Conversely, perhaps you could explain the benefits?  So far, I see
>> none (provided --force is available to allow the commit when it is
>> needed).
>
> The harm comes from changing the default behavior.  I have scripts
> that I run from cron that would be broken by that change.  tla isn't
> very user-friendly.  Scripts can make it smoother.  Let's not make tla
> script-unfriendly too.
>
>> Why not go the whole hog and permit people to commit with empty log files?
>
> tla does permit people to commit with empty log files.  Try "tla
> make-log; tla commit".
>
> The case where it doesn't permit empty log files is the case where you
> commit with no log file at all.  There are two obvious cases why you
> might commit with no log:
>
> 1. You want commit to run $($EDITOR $(tla make-log)) for you.
> 2. You invoked commit in the wrong directory.
>
> In the second case, the user can abort the process when they see the
> empty log by quitting.  Othewise, they're stuck.

What about blocking commit if there is no change AND the log-message is
identical to the last one ?

-- 
William Dodé - http://flibuste.net