Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Apr 20, 2007, 10:39 UTC
Message-ID: <7vr6qf1g9c.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070420101801.GA13560@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> This is the main selling point of StGIT, in my opinion. It keeps track
> of stuff for you when you rebase, so you won't accidentally forget
> things. The extra help isn't needed much when everything goes
> smoothly, but as soon as you get a conflict or three in the middle of
> rebasing a largish stack, it's invaluable to just be able to say "stg
> series" to see which patches have been applied to HEAD, and which are
> still floating in limbo.

I do not think we are talking about the same thing. In your example, you perfectly well remember that you were in the middle of StGIT operation. The problem I described is that sometimes I do not even recall if I was rebasing or merging after resolving conflicts. If I *knew* I was in the middle of a rebase, I know where to look (.dotest/ has all the necessary "state" for rebase/am to continue) to remind me where I was.