Subject: Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

From: Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:13:26 +0000

On 01/11/05, Linus Torvalds <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Chris Mason wrote:
> > StGIT has the ability to rebase patches via three-way merge.  This is
> > still on my todo list for mq.
>
> So I'm _neither_ a StGIT not mq user, but I can definitely say that
> rebasing with a three-way merge instead of just trying to apply the patch
> (whether in reverse like in a merge, or just re-apply it straigt) is
> really really nice.

StGIT first tries a "git-diff-tree | git-apply" since it is faster but
when this fails it falls back to a three-way merge. A 'stg status'
command would show the conflicted files and they should be marked as
resolved before refreshing the patch.

One of the good parts of the three-way merge is that it detects when a
patch you sent was fully merged upstream, the local patch becoming
empty after the merge. If not, you either get a conflict or the merge
leaves the patch with only the unmerged parts.

--
Catalin