Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

[Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:30:06PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 01/11/05, Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> wrote:
> > I would suggest just putting the .git/patches directory under revision
> > control.
> 
> Putting them under a separate revisions repository, i.e. having a
> .git/patches/,git directory? Otherwise there would be some problems
> with the modified files automatically included in a patch.
> 
> > More importantly, you can reuse gitk and all of the other history
> > functionality in the SCM.
> 
> Doing it the above way wouldn't be of much help with gitk. You would
> get files like .git/patches/master/patchX/top etc. under revision
> control which only contain some hash strings, not meaningful. With GIT
> you have the advantage of being able to specify the DAG structure. It
> is pretty simple to just link the commit objects corresponding to a
> patch into a DAG and using gitk would allow you to navigate through
> the history and also look at the diff itself.

I think we're talking past each other a little, partially because
I'm not sure exactly what features you want from revision control on the
patches.

But, my suggestion is to remember that once you add some sort of
revision control, people are going to want all of the features they are
used to with git/hg/their favorite SCM.  You'll probably get better
results if you patch git to your needs then if you try to reimplement
things all over again. 

-chris