I wrote a new command 'stg move' some time ago, which you may find useful. It moves patches between stgit branches. The implementation works well enough for me, but I never took the time to polish it enough for inclusion in stgit. You can find my patch in the stgit mail archives.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:33 AM Marc Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
