From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [RFC] Patches exchange is bad? Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20050816200132.88287.qmail@web26304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 17 19:13:45 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E5RTn-0006gn-6H for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:13:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751174AbVHQRN0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:13:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751175AbVHQRN0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:13:26 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([193.131.176.58]:9372 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174AbVHQRNZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:13:25 -0400 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.127.39]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7HHCHOU019229; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com (cam-exch2.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.58]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11613; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:13:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.1.69.144]) by ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:13:09 +0100 To: Marco Costalba In-Reply-To: <20050816200132.88287.qmail@web26304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (Marco Costalba's message of "Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:01:32 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2005 17:13:09.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[F11B9360:01C5A34E] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Marco Costalba wrote: > Suppose a possible scenario involves using a couple of git archives, one > for releases and stable code, say MAIN, and one for experimental stuff > or new development, say HEAD. > > Suppose there is stuff in HEAD you don't want merged in MAIN, more, > you need to update MAIN with only a subset of patches in HEAD, peraphs > in different order. Or simply, you are not interested to see the history > of the HEAD tree when looking MAIN. All this points could keep you > from merging. As others already recommended StGIT, I will just add a simple usage scenario (I do this with my StGIT repository). The MAIN/stable repository (or branch) is only managed with GIT, not StGIT. The HEAD one is managed with StGIT (only, you can use 'stg clone'). You can create patches, modify them etc. (I updated the README in the latest snapshot and it contains some kind of tutorial). Once you want a subset of these patches merged into MAIN, just pop everything from the stack and only push those you want merged, in the order you want (if there are some dependencies, the push will fail and you can correct them or the order). When you are happy with the patches pushed on the stack, just do a 'git pull ' in the MAIN repository. After this, doing a 'stg pull
' in the HEAD one will mark the patches already integrated into MAIN as empty and you can safely remove them ('stg clean' does this automatically). This way I found StGIT useful for maintainers as well, not only for contributors. -- Catalin