Stacked GIT 0.14.2 release is available from http://www.procode.org/stgit/.

StGIT is a Python application providing similar functionality to Quilt
(i.e. pushing/popping patches to/from a stack) on top of GIT. These
operations are performed using GIT commands and the patches are stored
as GIT commit objects, allowing easy merging of the StGIT patches into
other repositories using standard GIT functionality.

This is a maintenance release including bug-fixes and a few user
interface enhancements. Acknowledgements:

Catalin Marinas (13):
      Don't set the default authdate if none specified
      Allow pick to import multiple patches
      Check for unnecessary push/pop in 'float'
      Allow the synchronisation of the unapplied patches
      Modify 'series' to use '#' instead of '|'
      Set umask to 0022 during the setup.py execution
      Refuse to send empty patches
      Add a boundary to parse_patches in pick.py
      Fix sync to push the popped patches back after sync'ing
      Remove the reordering side-effect of the latter sync changes
      Allow picking of one commit id
      Remove a newline from the e-mail template
      Release 0.14.2

Onno Kortmann (2):
      Simple rename of top-most patch
      Test the 'stg rename' command

Alex Chiang (1):
      Better "stg rebase" help text

Angus Salkeld (1):
      stg mail crashes when there is no patch description

Karl Hasselström (1):
      Make documentation less confusing

Peter Oberndorfer (1):
      replace "git repo-config" usage by "git config"

Toby Allsopp (1):
      Fix "stg branch --delete" on a nonexistent branch

-- 
Catalin
--

[ message continues ]

I always wondered what the difference between stgit and guilt is.
Does anyone have a comparison up?
--

[ message continues ]

And I remember some mumblings about git growing quilt-like functionality 
itself. Anything on that?

Rene.
--

[ message continues ]

Not my mumbling, but I am quite open to slurp in guilt as a subdirectory
in git.git at some point in the future just like we bundle git-gui and
gitk if asked by the maintainer.

The same applies to StGIT for that matter, although I somehow feel that is
much less likely to happen, because it lived long enough as a standalone
project with enough following to achieve sustainable momentum by itself.
--

[ message continues ]

Believe it was Linus. Seem to remember him saying something about possibly 
adding a native queues-like interface not too long ago but it's proving 

Rene.
--

[ message continues ]

It was Linus indeed, on the linux-arch mailing list:

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-arch@vger.kernel.org/msg05012.html

-- 
Catalin
--

[ message continues ]

Probably read it on linux-kernel but yes, that was the one, thanks much. 
Stored it as an interesting something -- used to use quilt and although I 
didn't much care for its linear nature when managing an entire tree, it 
probably works out well for private topic branches. Not overly sure of added 
practical value over git rebase, but I did like the simple nature of 
shuffling things around by just editing a series file back when I was using 
quilt. Keeps one on top of things, so to speak (<-- amusing play on words).

Moreover not too keen on using many tools do do one thing, so getting this 
inside git itself sounded like a possibly nice notion.

Rene.
--

[ message continues ]

Git rebasing is useful but using a patch management tool is much
easier, especially when you need to post a series of patches multiple
times while implementing others' comments. And this is not only for
private branches but public ones that are meant for upstream merging.
The problem with these tools is that they rewrite the history of the
repository but they are OK if you aren't in a position where people
need to base their work on your tree.

I would much prefer to simply commit the additional comments at the
top of a branch without changing the history but this makes patch
posting and reviewing more difficult. Because of this requirement to
keep clean patches (which I think is fair), people using maintainers'

I don't like using many tools either, hence I use mostly StGIT :-).

-- 
Catalin
--

[ message continues ]

Indeed, StGIT has grown quite a lot (it now has ~45 commands) and it
probably feels better as a tool on its own. However, I think it would
be good for git to get such functionality (and it could even share
some ideas StGIT and guilt). If this functionality will get fully
integrated in git, StGIT could use it directly rather than the
low-level git commands.

An example of additional functionality that might stay outside of git
(at least for a while): since basic patch management support is pretty
much complete in StGIT, a feature we are thinking about adding is
better support for patch sharing between developers (or
repositories/branches). This should allow easier cloning and merging
with branches that have a volatile history at the top.

-- 
Catalin
--

[ message continues ]

Junio,

That'd be great!  Is there anything special you want me to do?  Well, I want
to finish up a merge I've been working on first.

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.

-- 
Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
--

[ message continues ]

Hi,

[cutting down the Cc: list to the most-likely-interested parties]


Would it not be more appropriate to slurp it in as a subproject?  But then 
the same grace period as for git-gui and gitk would apply, since we still 
expect some users not to have a submodule capable git...

Ciao,
Dscho
--

[ message continues ]

There was a thread last year:

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2007/6/14/249310

I don't follow the guilt development to be able to comment. They are
pretty similar regarding patch management but it's probably best to
try both and see which tool you like. StGIT might have a few more
features as it was around for longer (e-mail templates, patch
synchronisation between branches etc.) but guilt seems actively
developed as well.

I might be wrong here but I'm not sure whether guilt uses three-way
merging when pushing a patch or just a two-way diff apply. The
three-way merging has several advantages in dealing with conflicts.

-- 
Catalin
--

[ message continues ]

It's still using two-way diff apply, but I'd like to implement a three-way
merge as a fallback.

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.

-- 
The box said "Windows XP or better required". So I installed Linux.
--

[ message continues ]