From: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
To: "Pavel Roskin" <proski@gnu.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some ideas for StGIT
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:36:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0708060236x19674e4cjf04cec716ae6246c@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1186163410.26110.55.camel@dv>
Hi Pavel,
All the interesting discussion usually happen during my holidays :-).
On 03/08/2007, Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org> wrote:
> I was recently disappointed to learn that one of the Linux drivers
> (bcm43xx_mac80211, to be precise) switched from git to quilt. I asked
> whether StGIT was considered, a discussion followed, and I think the key
> points need to be shared with StGIT developers. I'll add some of my
> ideas to the mix.
Thanks for the feedback.
> The main point in favor of quilt is that it allows to edit the patches
> with the text editor. One can pop all patches, edit them and push the
> all back.
If this is the main feature they need, they probably don't need git at
all and quilt would be enough. I was using quilt before starting StGIT
but the main problem I had with plain patches approach was the
conflict solving.
StGIT does a 'git-diff | git-apply' as a patch push optimization and
we could even cache the diff but the current algorithm is that if
git-apply fails, StGIT falls back to a three-way merge and even an
interactive user merge (via xxdiff for example). I find the three-way
merging (automatic or interactive) much more powerful than fuzzy patch
application.
If we would allow patch editing, the 'stg push' algorithms wouldn't
know when git-apply failed because the patch was edited or the base
was changed. Falling back to the three-way merge would lose the edited
patch. If one doesn't need three-way merging, quilt is good enough.
Other advantages of the three-way merging is the detection of full
patches or hunks merged upstream (the former can also be achieved by
testing the reverse-application of the patches).
I don't usually edit patches during development, I prefer to edit the
source files and review the diff. It happens many times to move hunks
between patches but I usually towards the bottom patches in the stack
(using stg export and emacs) and the three-way merging automatically
removes the merged hunks from top patches.
> I don't suggest that StGIT gives up on the git-based storage, but this
> mode of operation could be implemented in two ways.
>
> One is to have a command opposite to "export". It would read the files
> that "export" produces, replacing the existing patches.
As Yann said, we already have 'stg import --replace'. I mainly use
this feature with series sent to me and when they need some editing to
apply cleanly. There is also 'stg import --ignore' to ignore the
patches already applied (mainly when the importing fails in the middle
of a series, there is no need to re-import the first patches).
> Another approach would be to reexamine the patch after "stg refresh -es"
> and to apply it instead of the original patch. If the patch doesn't
> apply, the options would be to discard the edits or to re-launch the
> editor.
That's an interesting idea but maybe we should have a separate command
like --edit-full to edit the full patch + log (part of the
functionality already available in import).
> Next issue is that it should be possible to create a patch in one
> operation. StGIT follows quilt too closely here in requiring "new" and
> "refresh", instead of utilizing the advantage of the workflow that
> allows immediate editing of the sources without any commands.
>
> Basically, I want one command that:
>
> 1) shows user what was changed
> 2) allows user to name the patch
> 3) allows user to describe the patch
> 4) allows user to exclude files from the patch
> 5) doesn't require another command to put the changes to the patch
>
> I think the most natural approach would be to enhance "stg new". I see
> "stg new -s" is supposed to show the changes, but it's currently broken.
Thanks for reporting this. I don't use the --showpatch options much
and we don't have any tests (yet) for the interactive options.
> Finally, it would be great to have TLS support in the mail command.
> Mercurial has it, and looking at their mail.py, it doesn't seem to be
> much work.
Indeed, the SMTP Python objects already provide support for TLS via starttls().
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-06 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-03 17:50 Some ideas for StGIT Pavel Roskin
2007-08-03 18:14 ` Andy Parkins
2007-08-04 5:41 ` Pavel Roskin
2007-08-04 5:51 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-08-05 0:08 ` Pavel Roskin
2007-08-05 0:17 ` Jakub Narebski
2007-08-05 2:31 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-08-05 3:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-08-05 13:39 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-05 13:56 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-05 14:06 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-05 14:15 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-05 14:57 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-04 8:08 ` Yann Dirson
2007-08-06 10:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2007-08-04 14:14 ` Chris Shoemaker
2007-08-04 15:22 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-03 23:23 ` Yann Dirson
2007-08-06 9:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2007-08-06 13:26 ` Pavel Roskin
2007-08-06 15:19 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-04 6:38 ` Theodore Tso
2007-08-04 8:16 ` Yann Dirson
2007-08-04 21:35 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-05 0:12 ` Pavel Roskin
2007-08-06 9:36 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2007-08-06 9:56 ` Karl Hasselström
2007-08-06 12:42 ` Pavel Roskin
2007-08-06 13:52 ` Karl Hasselström
2007-08-23 14:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2007-08-23 14:34 ` Karl Hasselström
2007-08-06 17:17 ` Pavel Roskin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b0943d9e0708060236x19674e4cjf04cec716ae6246c@mail.gmail.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=proski@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).