Re: [BUG] StGit removed git branch of the same name as StGit branch
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 20, 2006, 22:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ejtbph$tod$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061120224800.GF12285@fieldses.org>
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:37:54PM +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
>>> The idea I guess was to make it possible to use stgit (and only stgit) >>> for everything, and never type a git command. It might have been better >>> to make stgit only manage patch series, and admit that people should use >>> git for the rest. Then it might work more like you expect. >> >> Yes, I expected to use StGit as a kind of preprocessing (branch preparation) >> for git. > > The multiple-porcelains idea seems like a mistake to me--it'd be fine if > you're just adding new features on the side, but who wants to learn > entirely different sets of commands, with subtly different syntax, > semantics, and feature sets, for doing the same thing?
I don't think so. StGit seems that way because it mainly adds new feature: patch management. But it can be used both as standalone SCM (like Quilt), or as a tool to manage patches in branch (rebase/cherry-pick on steroids).
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git