Re: Merging commits together into a super-commit

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: May 10, 2007, 19:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20070510194742.GC4489@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20070510192212.GP13719@fieldses.org>

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:22:12PM CEST, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> > stg - This probably works great if you're using it as a primary
> >       interface. But trying to use it as a quick one-off when
> >       generally using core git does not work well at all. Instead of
> >       the two "git tag" commands in my recipe above, an stg recipe
> >       would involve a lot of additional bookkeeping with stg init, stg
> >       uncommit [N times for fixing a commit N steps back in the
> >       history], stg goto, stg push, etc.
> 
> I also didn't like having to come up with another name for each
> patch--I'd rather just run git-log or gitk and cut-n-paste the sha1.

Actually, you don't have to - if you don't specify the patch names, stgit will make them up itself using the subject of the commit message as a base.

And by the way, I absolutely love that - when viewing the stack, it's very useful to see what commits you still have to go etc. - stg series is concise yet fully descriptive. I'm pondering about whether something like this couldn't be incorporated into other git UIs somehow as well.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Ever try. Ever fail. No matter. // Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
		-- Samuel Beckett