# Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad? 2 messages from 2005-08-16 to 2005-08-16. Participants: Marco Costalba, Daniel Barkalow. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1540 ## Marco Costalba, 2005-08-16 22:09 Subject: Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad? Message-ID: <20050816220923.42545.qmail@web26301.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050816220923.42545.qmail%40web26301.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ``` Martin Langhoff wrote: >>From what I understand, you'll want the StGIT infrastructure. If you >use git/cogito, there is an underlying assumption that you'll want >all the patches merged across, and a simple cg-update will bring in >all the pending stuff. > My concerns are both metodologicals and practical: 1) Method: To use the 'free patching workflow' on git is something foreseen in git design, something coherent with the fork + develop + merge cycle that it seems, at least to me, THE way git is meant to be used. Or it is stretching the possibility of the tool to something technically allowed but not suggested. 2) Practical: The round trip git-format-patch + git-applymbox is the logical and natural way to reach this goal or, also in this case, I intend to stretch some tools, designed for one thing, for something else? About StGIT, I agree it is the right tool, designed for this kind of problems. But, peraphs because I don't know it very much, I still can't figure out how to integrate StGit in a git GUI, like qgit is, so to have an unified and friendly view of a git archive and a patches stack. Marco __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-08-16 22:45 Subject: Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad? Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508161824140.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: <20050816220923.42545.qmail@web26301.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ``` On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote: > Martin Langhoff wrote: > > >>From what I understand, you'll want the StGIT infrastructure. If you > >use git/cogito, there is an underlying assumption that you'll want > >all the patches merged across, and a simple cg-update will bring in > >all the pending stuff. > > > > My concerns are both metodologicals and practical: > > 1) Method: To use the 'free patching workflow' on git is something foreseen in > git design, something coherent with the fork + develop + merge cycle that it > seems, at least to me, THE way git is meant to be used. Or it is stretching > the possibility of the tool to something technically allowed but not suggested. Patches are definitely meant to be part of how git is used; they are the primary way of getting clean history out of messy history (that is, saving a content change while discarding some history that isn't applicable). There's relatively little support in git itself, but that's because the point is to go outside the system's tracking. There have been various discussions of more explicit support, and nobody's been able to come up with a need. > 2) Practical: The round trip git-format-patch + git-applymbox is the logical and > natural way to reach this goal or, also in this case, I intend to stretch some tools, > designed for one thing, for something else? I'd guess that git-diff-tree + git-apply (without the rest of the scripting) would be more effective when you're not doing anything with the intermediate files, since it saves doing a bunch of formatting and parsing. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ```