Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

On 01/11/05, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> Did anyone do any current detailed comparison between hg mq and StGIT?

Not AFAIK. I looked a bit at mq but didn't have time to play with it.

> I'm very happy with StGIT, modulo few UI gripes I'm still not getting
> around to fix, and the fact that I cannot version my changes to patches
> - this is one advantage of having quilt stuff tracked by GIT, I think,
> but that feels ugly.

That's not too far away. Chuck Lever has a patch (and there were some
other discussions in the past) for tracking the history of a patch.
Basically, there would be another commit object, not reachable from
HEAD but only via an StGIT command, which would chain all the versions
of a patch. You would be able to view them with gitk for example.

My main issue was whether we should store every state resulted from a
refresh  or use a separate command (somebody suggested 'freeze') to
mark the states that should be preserved in the history. Chuck's patch
implements the first. The drawback is that a future 'stg prune'
command would not be able to remove the history and some states of the
patch might not be useful (there are times when I do a refresh only to
pop the patch and modify a different one, without any logical meaning
for the state of the patch).

I'm open to other suggestions as well. Otherwise, Chuck's patch should
do the job.

--
Catalin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html