why don't you guys use stg (stacked git) it allows you to manage a set of patches, with features like : - re-edit an existing one (basically, you push/pull a set of patches from a stack, and decide which one to use) - you get the upside of git, without the down side (ie a commit is done only once) (but you can still commit a patch - in git sense ; but you'll get back Mike's first point about pull/fetch discussion) - you don't need to rebase (it does it for you) - you don't need to coalesce patches (as you can reedit an existing one) - it's compatible with some other tools (like qgit)
basically, I switched to stg - on top of git - when I got my tree messed up twice by updates... If you go for stg, I also recommend the bash completion extension which is very helpful (for patch name's management)
my 2 cents
Message du 18/01/06 17:39 De : "Robert Shearman" A : "Mike McCormack" Copie à : "Wine Devel" Objet : Re: GIT rebase changes
Mike McCormack wrote:
Hi GIT users,
The GIT guys have made rebase and pull incompatible, and to use rebase (which is likely what we want to do for Wine), you must use "fetch" then "rebase", not "pull" (which does a merge).
And on a slightly related note, I wrote a script which works kinda like rebase (and is based on the old version of rebase) that allows you to coalesce two patches in your tree. This is useful in two situations:
- You commit a new feature and then realise after some extensive
testing that there is a bug, so you commit a fix, don't want to send the two separate patches to wine-patches (maybe to save face :-), or maybe to reduce noise). 2. You revert a patch in your tree but don't want both the revert and the old patch in your patch queue as shown by git-format-patch or by Mike's mm-send-patch.
Note that the first commit chronologically must be the first commit on the command line.
-- Rob Shearman
[ rob-git-coalesce-patches (2.5 Ko) ] [ (pas de nom de fichier) (0.0 Ko) ]
-
Eric POUECH