Re: [StGit PATCH] Convert "sink" to the new infrastructure

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2008, 15:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20080918154757.GA19868@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0809180431x30c8f751g374732ee861ffe61@mail.gmail.com>

On 2008-09-18 12:31:35 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> 2008/9/18 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>:
>
> > Ah, OK. Then I think you want something like this:
> >
> >  try:
> >      trans.reorder_patches(applied, unapplied, hidden, iw)
> >  except transaction.TransactionHalted:
> >      if not options.conflict:
> >          trans.abort(iw)
> >          raise common.CmdException(
> >              'Operation rolled back -- would result in conflicts')
> >  return trans.run(iw)
>
> I tried this before but trans.abort(iw) seems to check out the iw
> index which is the one immediately after the push conflict, though
> the stack is unmodified, i.e. stg status shows some missing files
> (which are added by subsequent patches after the conflicting one)
> and a conflict.

Hmm, strange. That's not what I thought it was supposed to do. Look at how coalesce uses it, for example.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Or simply give up on the --conflict option and always stop after the
> conflict (catch the exception and don't re-raise it). This way we
> don't have to bother with checking out the initial state. With the
> "undo" command in your branch, people could simply revert the stack
> to the state prior to the sink command. Maybe that's a good idea so
> that we don't complicate commands further with different conflict
> behaviours.

Yes, this is what every other command does, so it makes sense consistency-wise.

But I liked the idea of your "roll-back-in-case-of-conflicts" flag; it would be nice to have in many commands.

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