On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 19:58, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 09:46:53AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:25AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > With Git you can't really have unwanted local commits present in a > > > tree if you use a sensible workflow, so if you tested in a tree that > > > was at commit 1234abcd and you push from another machine that is at > > > the same commit, you know there are no unintended differences. > > > > Maybe I don't have a sensible workflow, but often with lots of tiddly > > little binutils patches I don't bother with branches for everything. > > Yup, same here. And I sometimes "git revert" some of the patches I have > in my "work" tree to be able to test other patches, while making it easy > to get things back. To prevent "death by a thousand branches" syndrome. > Apparently you can do similar with "git stash", but I never got the hang > of that. > > Sometimes I revert a revert of a revert. That's probably too much > though :-)
My main point was that Richi should be committing things, not working with uncommitted patches hanging around making things dirty. I like to use branches, but having a single branch with a series of commits that you reorder and selectively push is still better than uncommitted work.
