Re: StGIT rebasing safeguard

From: Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
Date: Jun 19, 2007, 22:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20070619223700.GA7730@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0706191518o6396a2c5u1fb4f0953dc85aa@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On 19/06/07, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 14/06/07, Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote:
> >> When the parent branch is a rewinding one (eg. an stgit stack), then
> >> the old version of the patch will be turned to unreachable by
> >> pull/rebase, and we probably have even no way of telling stgit that it
> >> is indeed expected, since the parent stack is a local one.  My own
> >> workflow on StGIT is affected by the issue, since my "bugs" stack is
> >> forked off my "master" stack (but hopefully an hydra will help me ;).
> >
> >If I understand correctly, is this the case where you do a 'stg
> >commit'? This command is meant for branches that are never rebased
> >(i.e. my master stgit branch). For this branch one wouldn't have a
> >remote branch configured and hence git fetch shouldn't do anything.
> 
> I got confused - you were talking about 'stg rebase' rather than the
> 'pull' strategy. But the question remains - are you referring to the
> user running 'stg commit' and losing this commit after a rebase?

Not at all. I'm talking about an stgit stack, whose base is the head of another stack (eg. a "pu" branch). When you want to rebase, the old heads/pu is only reachable from your stack base.

Maybe we can use the parent's reflog, but I'm not sure it would cover all cases, and a reflog can possibly be expired before the information in there gets used.

> The rebase should be equivalent to a git-reset but with
> popping/pushing of the patches one the stack. Once committed, the
> patch is no longer managed by StGIT and therefore we shouldn't care.

That is another issue - and I rather believe we should not allow a user to do that without --force, if what he committed will be unreachable after rebasing. If he intended to loose it, he would usually rather have used "stg delete" than such a convoluted sequence of actions :)

Best regards,

-- 
Yann.