From: Catalin Marinas Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:25:30 GMT Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] pg - A patch porcelain for GIT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20060214222913.GK31278@pasky.or.cz> On 14/02/06, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:58:02PM CET, I got a letter > where Chuck Lever said that... > > my impression of git is that you don't change stuff that's already > > committed. you revert changes by applying a new commit that backs out > > the original changes. i'm speculating, but i suspect that's why there's > > a "stg pick --reverse" and not a "stg uncommit." > > It is ok as long as you know what are you doing - if you don't push out > the commits you've just "undid" (or work on a public accessible > repository in the first place, but I think that's kind of rare these > days; quick survey - does anyone reading these lines do that?), there's > nothing wrong on it, and it gives you nice flexibility. > > For example, to import bunch of patches (I guess that's the original > intention behind this) you just run git-am on them and then stg uncommit > all of the newly added commits. This is a sensible way of using an uncommit command but I initially thought it would be better to make things harder for people wanting to re-write the history. Anyway, I'll keep this command on my todo list. -- Catalin