Re: hgmq vs. StGIT
- From
- Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 1, 2005, 09:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b0943d9e0511010123i1f9eb679w@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20051101090804.GA11618@pasky.or.cz>
On 01/11/05, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> Did anyone do any current detailed comparison between hg mq and StGIT?
Not AFAIK. I looked a bit at mq but didn't have time to play with it.
> I'm very happy with StGIT, modulo few UI gripes I'm still not getting > around to fix, and the fact that I cannot version my changes to patches > - this is one advantage of having quilt stuff tracked by GIT, I think, > but that feels ugly.
That's not too far away. Chuck Lever has a patch (and there were some other discussions in the past) for tracking the history of a patch. Basically, there would be another commit object, not reachable from HEAD but only via an StGIT command, which would chain all the versions of a patch. You would be able to view them with gitk for example.
My main issue was whether we should store every state resulted from a refresh or use a separate command (somebody suggested 'freeze') to mark the states that should be preserved in the history. Chuck's patch implements the first. The drawback is that a future 'stg prune' command would not be able to remove the history and some states of the patch might not be useful (there are times when I do a refresh only to pop the patch and modify a different one, without any logical meaning for the state of the patch).
I'm open to other suggestions as well. Otherwise, Chuck's patch should do the job.
-- Catalin