Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> (it's not yet clear to me that Git can usefully represent changesets >> via feature branches, but that's another argument that is already >> ongoing elsewhere).
> People are arguing about that because bikeshedding and random discussion > of lattices, is, apparently, fun. Actually, no, it isn't. The emotion that I'm feeling is frustration rather than fun. Which may well mean that I just shouldn't do it and just let the whole thing go if I don't agree rather than trying to explain why don't agree. However, if I did that, I'd miss prompting some really interesting bits of information... > apt-cache show stgit ...like this. This is fascinating because it changes the underlying assumption entirely. This *doesn't* maintain patches as feature branches, which is the solution that I'd heard before. It maintains patches as git commits, which is a much more natural solution and makes considerably more sense to me (since fundamentally that's what a patch is, whereas maintaining patches as feature branches undoes the node to arrow transformation that's fundamental to why I find git useful). Thank you! I now need to go play with this. This may give me exactly what I want. I'm sorry that I didn't look at this thoroughly before. (The main open question that I have at the moment is whether StGIT can maintain history of the commits, which is something that quilt + a VCS can do and which is occasionally useful. But I need to dig in further to understand what it can or can't do.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
