Re: bug?: stgit creates (unneccessary?) conflicts when pulling

From: Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>
Date: 2006-03-02 04:39:13
Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 27/02/06, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>An idea (untested, I don't even know whether it's feasible) would be to
>>check which patches were merged by reverse-applying them starting with
>>the last. In this situation, all the merged patches should just revert
>>their changes. You only need to do a git-diff between the bottom and the
>>top of the patch and git-apply the output (maybe without even modifying
>>the tree). If this operation succeeds, the patch was integrated and you
>>don't even need to push it.
> 
> 
> I attached another patch that should work properly. It also pushes
> empty patches on the stack if they were merged upstream (a 'stg clean'
> is required to remove them). This is useful for the push --undo
> command if you are not happy with the result.
> 
> I'll try this patch for a bit more before pushing into the repository.

i think this is a cool idea.  but it seems still to require a bit of 
convention on the part of the maintainer.

if maintainer X takes a patch "a" from developer Y, but modifies patch 
"a" before committing it, then your nifty automated mechanism will still 
have trouble merging developer Y's stack when Y pulls again.

the convention might be that maintainers who accept patches will always 
accept exactly what was sent, and then immediately apply another commit 
that addresses any issues they have with the original commit.  this is 
also a good idea so that the history contains the exact attribution of 
each change.

-
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

Received on Thu Mar 02 04:42:26 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-02 04:42:38 EST