Re: [StGit PATCH 1/2] Convert "stg refresh" to the new infrastructure

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2008, 10:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20080629102147.GA5098@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0806290242q1bc8aa67qb3523221b3db70e2@mail.gmail.com>

On 2008-06-29 10:42:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 2008/6/25 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>:
>
> > And in the process, make it more powerful: it will now first
> > create a temp patch containing the updates, and then try to merge
> > it into the patch to be updated. If that patch is applied, this is
> > done by popping, pushing, and coalescing; if it is unapplied, it
> > is done with an in-index merge.
>
> Does it make sense to refresh an unapplied patch? Maybe adding a new
> file to the patch but I don't really see a need for this.

A change in a different part of the same file should work as well, I believe.

But no, I don't have a strong sense that this is super useful. It was just easy to allow, so I allowed it.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Also, whenever path limiting is used, we will now use a temporary
> > index in order to avoid including all staged updates (since they
> > may touch stuff outside the path limiters).
>
> I haven't checked but what is the behaviour in subdirectors? It
> currently refreshes everythink unless "." is specified so that it
> will only refresh the current subdirectory.

That's the new behavior as well. Path limiters are taken to be realtive to the current working directory, and without limiters we refresh everything.

> The patch looks fine otherwise.

Thanks for the review.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle