Re: Stacked GIT 0.1 (a.k.a. quilt for git)

From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2005, 22:28 UTC
Message-ID: <2cfc4032050617152878b75c97@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0506171750180.30848-100000@iabervon.org>

Show 11 quoted lines

> 
> I think it would worth exploring defining a git type for patches and
> storing the patches inside git as well. Then a commit could identify the
> patch it applies (when it is from applying a patch), and a rebased patch
> could reference the patch it replaces, and then (with a certain amount of
> handwaving of implementation) the system could notice when the patch
> you're pushing got applied upstream. Or, at least, git could avoid
> throwing away the history information when it goes through patches. I keep
> thinking that this would be an important feature, but I haven't got the
> familiarity with quilt to know how it should work.
>

I also think it would be good if patches extracted from git repositories included some information about exactly where the patch was extracted from...something like...

signed-off-by: Name <user@host.domain> --- commit: sha1 -> sha1 tree: sha1 -> sha1

The reason for including the commits is to allow the maintainer to track exactly where the a given rev of a patch was from. The reason for including the treeids is to allow appliers to verify that the patch has produced the same result as the patch submitter.