On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 08:01:54PM +0100, Karl Wiberg wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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. > > Right. > > > There are other things which I find useful like small notes for > > patches (review comments for example) which could sit nicely in the > > metadata. > > Git can append notes to commits nowadays, if I recall corectly. I > haven't checked them out closely, but it'd be a shame to invent our > own incompatible mechanism if they'd be a good fit for this. > > (It wouldn't surprise me if all of StGit's metadata could be sanely > stored in Git notes, but let's not go there for now unless someone has > a lot of free time on their hands...)
I found git notes to be unreliable with git rebase (unless there was a bug in my version of Git). Sometimes it keeps them but on many occasions they were just lost. Git stores a pair of commit id - note id but doesn't always rewrite such pairs properly during rebase. If we mix git notes with stg rebase, I guess we could make some simple improvements to stgit to rewrite the notes. The only problem is that stgit deals with an internal Git implementation detail which may change in the future. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
