2015-05-23 7:12 GMT-07:00 Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>:
> So in general I think this would only work for patches never meant for > upstream (e.g. I have a "debug" branch with various hacks and when I need > to investigate something I just switch to it and rebase it into the topic > branch I want to debug). Wow this is weird: we seem to have the almost exact opposite approach. I've always (tried to...) use StGit for hacks and solving temporary problems, versus git rebase and cherry-pick for more static and ordered work and topic branches. Because normal git commands don't have any easy way to pop and save individual and unrelated hacks. I literally started using StGit out of frustration with git stash and use the former as much better version of the latter. Except for this branches issue... Afraid I will have to live with stg export/sync/etc. At least they give the ability to cross over clones while they're at it. > For example, a patch merged into a topic branch (or upstream) may cause a patch to be removed on rebase (or changes). Well, in this case it can always be picked up again - nothing got lost. > Similarly if we would have the concept global patches, Would that be technically possible / any rough idea of the amount of work involved? Say for you; then I'll apply an appropriate multiplier :-) Marc
_______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
