On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote: > 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] <javascript:;>> 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.
I would definitely vote for metadata changes (master.stgit branch) rather than empty commits on the main branch. Such branch may be exported and we don't want to pollute non-stgit users. There are other things which I find useful like small notes for patches (review comments for example) which could sit nicely in the metadata. Catalin -- Catalin
_______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
