Re: [BUG] StGit removed git branch of the same name as StGit branch

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:37:54PM +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:

>>> The idea I guess was to make it possible to use stgit (and only stgit)
>>> for everything, and never type a git command.  It might have been better
>>> to make stgit only manage patch series, and admit that people should use
>>> git for the rest.  Then it might work more like you expect.
>> 
>> Yes, I expected to use StGit as a kind of preprocessing (branch preparation)
>> for git.
> 
> The multiple-porcelains idea seems like a mistake to me--it'd be fine if
> you're just adding new features on the side, but who wants to learn
> entirely different sets of commands, with subtly different syntax,
> semantics, and feature sets, for doing the same thing?

I don't think so. StGit seems that way because it mainly adds new feature:
patch management. But it can be used both as standalone SCM (like Quilt),
or as a tool to manage patches in branch (rebase/cherry-pick on steroids).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git