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
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
> 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
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html