Re: Patch (apply) vs. Pull

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Jun 21, 2005, 18:02 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0506211337400.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <1119308502.3926.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Darrin Thompson wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 10:22 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >  (6) Throw away my HEAD, making Linus HEAD my HEAD, while
> >      preserving changes I have made since I forked from him.  I
> >      use "jit-rewind" for this.
> 
> When you say it that way it sounds so _bad_. :-)

The reason is actually that he has to end up with a different history, which is the history of the project mainline, rather than the history of his tree. He could, of course, follow his own history, but then communication with people who use a different history becomes difficult.

> Would it make sense to come up with a way to make an emailed series of
> patches represent a series of commits? Could patches still be
> cherrypicked?

Commits are fundamentally resistant to cherrypicking, because they give the state of the tree rather than expressing changes in that state. Long-term, I think that something like StGIT should be integrated into the system and deal with generating the HEAD you get after getting patches in.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*