Subject: Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

From: Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:18:49 +0000

On 01/11/05, Chris Mason <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:20:29AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > would show pretty-printed commit information for change 45.
> >
> >    stg revisions --revert=45
> >
> > would revert the patch back to the way it was in change 45.  notably,
> > you don't throw away changes 46 through 90 when you do this.  a new
> > change is added which changes the state of the patch to the way it was
> > in change 45.  (well, that's how it's supposed to work, anyway).
> >
> > i'm interested to hear what folks on the list think of the idea.
>
> I'm probably not familiar enough with stgit, but it
> looks to me as though you're tracking individual patch history only.

That's true, but you can use a 'git tag' command to mark the whole
stack as something useful and this would include the state of all the
patches on the stack. This would be a whole stack history, not
individual patch history. Maybe we should implement this as well (or
maybe only this).

Anyway, I wasn't sure that's the right implementation and that's why I
didn't include Chuck's patch yet.

--
Catalin