On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 07:05 +0200, Karl Wiberg wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Wouldn't gitk need the patches to be in the git log to see them, not > > just the stgit refs? If it does, I'm not sure we'd want to do that. > > My primary suggestion is to have the empty cover letter commits in the > main branch ("master", say), along with the commits that represent > StGit patches. That way, they'd be visible with a plain > > $ gitk > > The alternative would be to store the data as files in the metadata > branch ("master.stgit", in this example), alongside the files storing > all the other metadata.
I think my initial idea was the latter here, to store with the metadata. But I can look into how we can do the former, if it's easy to put it in but not scatter patches into the actual patch log. -PJ _______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
