From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: [RFC] Stgit - patch history / add extra parents Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20050818195753.GA9066@fanta> <20050819194832.GA8562@fanta> <1124572356.7512.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050821094059.GA5453@fanta> <20050823212305.GA5936@fanta> <20050825070955.GA762@eros.intern.mind.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Catalin Marinas , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 25 21:38:31 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8NXr-0003Sv-1Q for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:37:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751373AbVHYThs (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:37:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751239AbVHYThs (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:37:48 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:43278 "EHLO iabervon.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751373AbVHYThr (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:37:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 19394 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Aug 2005 15:41:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Aug 2005 15:41:23 -0400 To: Jan Veldeman In-Reply-To: <20050825070955.GA762@eros.intern.mind.be> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jan Veldeman wrote: > Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > I'm not sure how applicable to this situation stgit really is; I see stgit > > as optimized for the case of a patch set which is basically done, where > > you want to keep it applicable to the mainline as the mainline advances. > > Maybe I forgot to mention this: I would also like to have my development > tree split up in a patch stack. The separate patches makes tracking the > mainline a lot easier (conflicts are a lot easier to solve) I just try to keep things in this state sufficiently briefly that it doesn't become a problem. I also split things up into a bunch of branches, rather than into a stack of patches, and only work on parallel development before I've actually got a candidate for a series. > But this would assume that once the patch goes into stgit, it won't > change except when the parent gets updated. I think we will still change > the patches quite a bit and simultanious by a couple of people. The extension I had proposed to stgit should work for this; it would let you version control each patch just like other git projects. I just think it wouldn't work so well before the group has agreed on what patches there are. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*