"Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> writes: > If I could have worked out how to split them, while at the same time > being able to keep track of what changes were still needed, I would > have done. However, doing things like having a screech-boink.ly in > new, with a screech-and-boink.ly in snippets, and remembering to keep > checking that the docs were all up to date and the one in new could be > deleted was too much for my brain. The problem was that I believe I > needed to get them into a single patch for the benefit of patchy, but > I had them in six patches on my system. I git apply-ed each patch, but > didn't remember to git add the files. > > TBH that seems a duff aspect of git.
No, it isn't. git apply _only_ touches the work directory, so whatever happens, git does not remember anything about it. Use git apply --index if you want git to also _register_ the changes. > Any other changes to the repo it can deal with. No. git does _not_ track _any_ change in the work directory unless you commit it to the index. > Add a file and you need to remember to git add it. > > I've now got an even more humungous patch which includes the added > files. My preference would be to push to staging, patchy and revert if > there's a problem. > > What's the syntax for a revert? We use the staging branch exactly to avoid having to revert stuff. Instead we reset staging. Only stuff that percolated to master needs to get reverted in order to remove it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
