> > SYNOPSISWell, I think we (my mentors and me) had around three different versions of a synopsis. ATM I think the synopsis is not a very important thing to discuss, as it is relatively easy changeable even in the last minute. ;) But what are your actual fears? What troubles do you think of? I've read the discussion about git-what and I wrote it down on a yellow memo sheet *g* (no real TODO list) to have such a thing in git-sequencer. First I didn't want to have it in the prototype so I didn't add it to the spec. But it leads me to an open question I've also noticed on testing: If you currently start a rebase or am and there's a conflict and you do git sequencer --continue instead of git rebase --continue or git am --resolved the cleanup code of rebase/am is not executed and thus the job is not properly finished. How to prevent this? My first idea is the one I don't really like: the user tools temporarily generate some "post-sequencer scripts", that get executed after finished sequencing. This way, it doesn't matter if you call git sequencer --continue, git rebase --continue or git am --resolved to finish the job. The second idea is that somehow the user tool should set a "CALLER" environment variable or tell the caller otherwise (--caller=rebase?) and git-sequencer only continues if called by the same caller. The workflow is like this: $ git rebase -i ... Sequencing (3/5) Conflict! Fix and do git-rebase --continue $ $ # fix $ $ git sequencer --continue Use git-rebase --continue. $ git-rebase --continue ... Sequencing finished. Succesfully rebased foo bar blub. The string "git-rebase --continue" (or "git-am --resolved") must also be -- somehow (environment?) -- transferred to git... The same for --abort and --skip. Ideas for a clean solution? Oh, I've neither experienced stgit nor quilt, but I can imagine that it is some stack-(or push/pop)-based patch management. Ok ;-) Btw it is currently pretty stupid and doesn't accept any git-cherry-pick options. And I didn't know that --mainline exists. I've always thought the first parent in the parent list is the "mainline". Well, seems to be an easier-to-use alternative to the "merge" insn if you want to keep the non-mainline parents, commit message and authorship. So I think, it's ok to support it ;) Seems that it's yet another variant to realize squash, but less generic than the reset --soft ; commit approach. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Borislav Petkov | 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
