On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jan Veldeman wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > I'm not sure how applicable to this situation stgit really is; I see stgit
> > as optimized for the case of a patch set which is basically done, where
> > you want to keep it applicable to the mainline as the mainline advances.
> Maybe I forgot to mention this: I would also like to have my development
> tree split up in a patch stack. The separate patches makes tracking the
> mainline a lot easier (conflicts are a lot easier to solve)
I just try to keep things in this state sufficiently briefly that it
doesn't become a problem. I also split things up into a bunch of branches,
rather than into a stack of patches, and only work on parallel development
before I've actually got a candidate for a series.
> But this would assume that once the patch goes into stgit, it won't
> change except when the parent gets updated. I think we will still change
> the patches quite a bit and simultanious by a couple of people.
The extension I had proposed to stgit should work for this; it would let
you version control each patch just like other git projects. I just think
it wouldn't work so well before the group has agreed on what patches there
*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