Subject: Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

From: Pavel Machek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:08:04 +0100

Hi!

> Dear diary, on Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:23:33PM CET, I got a letter
> where Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]> said that...
...
> A night city, the snow slowly falling. Approaching the roofs covered in
> white and illuminated by the yellow street lighting, dark windows - but
> one dimly glowing, a computer screen inside. Close-up on a hacker:
> $EDITOR opened, lost deep in hack mode, fingers dancing over the
> keyboard.  Dreamy-monumental music in the background.
> 
> StGIT user, only part of the patches in stack, and the rest depends on
> the one currently edited, and I want to record my work on this one.
> I can either:

Are you sure you are git hacker? Maybe you should have been fiction
writer :-).

> (i) Just keep per-patch history only.
> 
> (ii) Keep _both_ per-patch and per-stack history (since I don't want to
> record the stack when I have to keep some patches out of it - the
> history would look like randomly removing and adding tons of patches,
> and jumping around would be difficult because of this too).
> 
> (iii) Keep per-patchlist history - do not actually record only our
> current stack, but all the patches StGIT knows about. The patches
> depending on the one currently being changed will not be in consistent
> state, but that's tough. Actually, this seems to be the most viable
> strategy. One question is whether to record if some patch is actually
> applied right now or not (I'd say don't record it since you again have
> the "bouncing problem" otherwise).

I do not know if ii or iii is better, but please *do* record what
patches were applied at what moment. That is useful info. "I'd like to
go back to know working configuration". If I do not know what patches
were applied at what moment, going back to working config is hard to
do.
								Pavel
-- 
Thanks, Sharp!