Re: bug?: stgit creates (unneccessary?) conflicts when pulling

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>]

Karl Hasselström wrote:
> We could perhaps do a little better. Instead of just noting whether
> the patch vanishes when reverse-applied, save the top and bottom of
> the patch as reverse-applied, and then replace the patch with the
> reverse of that. If the patch vanishes, this does what your patch does
> right now. If the patch does not vanish, all that remains is the parts
> that upstream didn't accept. (And as before, if the patch didn't
> reverse-apply cleanly, assume upstream hasn't accepted it at all yet.)

I don't fully understand this. If a patch reverse-applies cleanly, it
means that it was fully merged upstream. If it wasn't fully merged,
direct applying would fail and we should fall back to a three-way merge.
I'm not sure whether the latter would cause conflicts or not. The
disadvantage would be more time spent with trying two types of merges.

Anyway, I'll push the current patch but remain open to improvements. If
you get something working with your idea, please post a patch.

Catalin