Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> writes: > What's missing in StGit is easy interworking with git commands like > commit and rebase. This could be fixed by changing (reducing) the > StGit metada to rely more on what Git already provides. The main > visible effect would be patch names becoming automatic, similar to > those generated by "stg uncommit" but without the possibility of > renaming. The corresponding --name options and the "new" and "rename" > commands would also disappear ("new" can be replaced by either "git > commit" or an "stg commit" alias). > > The base of the stack is no longer maintained by StGit but determined > as the common ancestor between the current branch and a > parent/upstream branch (maybe defaulting to origin/master). All the > commits from the common ancestor to HEAD are considered applied > patches. > > The unapplied/popped patches (commits) could be linked into a separate > refs/heads/<branch>.unapplied. The refs/<branch>/patches/<patch-name> > are no longer created since refs/heads/* files can reach any of the > applied or unapplied patches. The standard Git reflog can be used for > undo information (though not infinite undo). > > Any thoughts? I don't want to start implementing this if people find > the UI changes annoying.
I like it. It is probably hard to grasp all the consequences until we start doing it, but I hope that it will mostly be positive changes. I don't use the manual patch naming either. -- David Kågedal _______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
