Re: Rebasing stgit stacks
- From
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
- Date
- Jan 17, 2007, 19:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070117193406.GG9761@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070117090313.GA9283@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:03:13AM +0100, Karl Hasselström wrote:
> (BTW, I've never seriously tried git rebase; does anyone have an > opinion of how convenient its conflict handling is, compared to > stgit's?)
When I was using it, it was much less convenient than stgit - required to forge a git-am command-line to continue after a conflict (--continue was added in April '06 - I had switched to StGIT before implementing it myself ;). My evaluation at that point was that it required too much understanding of the plumbing issues to be shown to a newbie - a problem which StGIT does not have. But I have not used it any more since then, and did not follow any improvements in this field.
StGIT features like "push --undo" also make it much easier to delay merge of a given patch, and stack handling makes it easier to continue your work after a night-break. Not to mention all goodies like patch reordering.
Best regards,
-- Yann.