Re: RFC: allowing multiple parallel sequencers

From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Apr 3, 2013, 20:14 UTC
Message-ID: <20130403201445.GD32276@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130402190651.GA17620@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:06:51PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> writes:
> > 
> > > 	I've recently started looking into the possibility of having git support
> > > multiple in-progress sequencers, and wanted to solicit opinions for how best to
> > > do it.... The thoughts I had were:
> > >
> > > 1) A per branch sequence directory...
> > > 2) Augment the git-stash command...
> > 
> > 3) A per branch working tree.
> > 
> > That is how I would do this myself, anyway ;-)
> > 
> Not sure I completely follow.  Are you suggesting that all untracked
> files, indexes and meta data in .git be saved during a branch switch?
> 
> Thanks
> Neil
> 
> --

Scratch that, after some digging I located the git-new-workdir script in the contrib directory, which does what we're talking about here.

Thanks! Neil

> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>