From: Catalin Marinas Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:13:26 GMT Subject: Re: hgmq vs. StGIT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 01/11/05, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Chris Mason wrote: > > StGIT has the ability to rebase patches via three-way merge. This is > > still on my todo list for mq. > > So I'm _neither_ a StGIT not mq user, but I can definitely say that > rebasing with a three-way merge instead of just trying to apply the patch > (whether in reverse like in a merge, or just re-apply it straigt) is > really really nice. StGIT first tries a "git-diff-tree | git-apply" since it is faster but when this fails it falls back to a three-way merge. A 'stg status' command would show the conflicted files and they should be marked as resolved before refreshing the patch. One of the good parts of the three-way merge is that it detects when a patch you sent was fully merged upstream, the local patch becoming empty after the merge. If not, you either get a conflict or the merge leaves the patch with only the unmerged parts. -- Catalin