Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 1, 2005, 17:18 UTC
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0511010918ob2dbcfcv@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051101153650.GB26847@watt.suse.com>

On 01/11/05, Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:20:29AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > would show pretty-printed commit information for change 45.
> >
> >    stg revisions --revert=45
> >
> > would revert the patch back to the way it was in change 45.  notably,
> > you don't throw away changes 46 through 90 when you do this.  a new
> > change is added which changes the state of the patch to the way it was
> > in change 45.  (well, that's how it's supposed to work, anyway).
> >
> > i'm interested to hear what folks on the list think of the idea.
>
> I'm probably not familiar enough with stgit, but it
> looks to me as though you're tracking individual patch history only.

That's true, but you can use a 'git tag' command to mark the whole stack as something useful and this would include the state of all the patches on the stack. This would be a whole stack history, not individual patch history. Maybe we should implement this as well (or maybe only this).

Anyway, I wasn't sure that's the right implementation and that's why I didn't include Chuck's patch yet.

-- Catalin