Re: StGIT: "stg new" vs "stg new --force"
- From
- Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 21, 2006, 18:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b0943d9e0601211031h2ef0a499s@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1137517300.20556.26.camel@dv>
On 17/01/06, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> I was going to suggest that would be logical to run "stg refresh" > implicitly if "stg new" is used on modified files. But then I realized > that it would be even better if future versions of StGIT allowed to > refresh (i.e. add changes to) patches other that the current one.
I think that would be useful but not easy to implement. StGIT was designed so that all operations happen on the top patch. The current tree changes depend on the top patch and refreshing a different patch with those changes would involve a three-way merge operation. This merging can generate conflicts which are not relevant to the top tree and they might even destroy the changes (depending on the merge options).
The way I work is, again, through a dummy patch which can be folded into the patch I want. This way I am sure that I still have the changes in the dummy patch if I'm not happy with the merge. Maybe all these could be done transparently and automatically remove the dummy patch if conflicts exist.
--