From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Seymour Subject: Re: Stacked GIT 0.1 (a.k.a. quilt for git) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:28:58 +1000 Message-ID: <2cfc4032050617152878b75c97@mail.gmail.com> References: Reply-To: jon@blackcubes.dyndns.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 18 00:24:10 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DjPFV-0001LG-Oe for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:23:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261181AbVFQW3A (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:29:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261197AbVFQW3A (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:29:00 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.199]:4395 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261181AbVFQW26 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:28:58 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i8so916614rne for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IRjISIkybAI7xBXWIDXnzT/IBvsgvGiy2owa6p/M1LyidcUs7CTqW/R+QjCqY+twfU21Gf8yE0yQwTQy7Jarr5P07w2GUMwQWygVii7jMFUF8mIRgFx35Lehhob1VLaya3XXI1pTWzg0DEPS9x0DL/YDoNO+h1U+qVimuXPvVBY= Received: by 10.38.181.17 with SMTP id d17mr1277467rnf; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.104.42 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) To: Daniel Barkalow , Git Mailing List In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > > I think it would worth exploring defining a git type for patches and > storing the patches inside git as well. Then a commit could identify the > patch it applies (when it is from applying a patch), and a rebased patch > could reference the patch it replaces, and then (with a certain amount of > handwaving of implementation) the system could notice when the patch > you're pushing got applied upstream. Or, at least, git could avoid > throwing away the history information when it goes through patches. I keep > thinking that this would be an important feature, but I haven't got the > familiarity with quilt to know how it should work. > I also think it would be good if patches extracted from git repositories included some information about exactly where the patch was extracted from...something like... signed-off-by: Name --- commit: sha1 -> sha1 tree: sha1 -> sha1 The reason for including the commits is to allow the maintainer to track exactly where the a given rev of a patch was from. The reason for including the treeids is to allow appliers to verify that the patch has produced the same result as the patch submitter.