Re: [ANNOUNCE] Stacked GIT 0.14.2

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 24, 2008, 23:40 UTC
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0803241640h500e43ffgee55bb9e1b2b04e2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47E837E8.7000606@keyaccess.nl>

On 24/03/2008, Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> used to use quilt and although I
>  didn't much care for its linear nature when managing an entire tree, it
>  probably works out well for private topic branches. Not overly sure of added
>  practical value over git rebase, but I did like the simple nature of
>  shuffling things around by just editing a series file back when I was using
>  quilt. Keeps one on top of things, so to speak (<-- amusing play on words).

Git rebasing is useful but using a patch management tool is much easier, especially when you need to post a series of patches multiple times while implementing others' comments. And this is not only for private branches but public ones that are meant for upstream merging. The problem with these tools is that they rewrite the history of the repository but they are OK if you aren't in a position where people need to base their work on your tree.

I would much prefer to simply commit the additional comments at the top of a branch without changing the history but this makes patch posting and reviewing more difficult. Because of this requirement to keep clean patches (which I think is fair), people using maintainers' branches can only use rebasing (or some patch management tool).

>  Moreover not too keen on using many tools do do one thing, so getting this
>  inside git itself sounded like a possibly nice notion.

I don't like using many tools either, hence I use mostly StGIT :-).

-- 
Catalin