From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LykBd-0003PL-B9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:05:13 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LykBY-0003N6-A2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:05:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57603 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LykBX-0003Mk-OJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:05:07 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34186) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LykBX-0001qv-2o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:05:07 -0400 Message-ID: <49F6D493.9050806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:04:03 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: updating git tree References: <761ea48b0904272354w3267b367hb62ee873b5e50a29@mail.gmail.com> <200904281049.54617.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> <49F6CE81.7040809@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <49F6CE81.7040809@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Laurent Desnogues , Christoph Egger , "C.W. Betts" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Jan Kiszka schrieb: > Christoph Egger wrote: >> On Tuesday 28 April 2009 08:54:56 Laurent Desnogues wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM, C.W. Betts wrote: >>>> I'm feeling lazy and I don't want to look at all the e-mails. How do you >>>> update your git tree? >>> Once you've cloned it (aka checkout), you update your tree using git pull >>> (aka update). >> Unlike 'svn update', a 'git pull' doesn't automatically merge local changes. >> git fails instead. git is missing this 'automatic merge on pull' feature. >> If you have local changes, you must do >> >> git stash ; git pull ; git stash pop >> >> Christoph >> >> P.S.: With mercurial you do 'hg pull -u' and local changes are automatically >> merged. > > If you have non-trivial changes pending, probably in multiple commits, I > can only recommend using stgit (or guilt) to compensate the missing > patch queue feature of git. It allows you to easily navigate back and > forth in your patch queues before finally posting them. I haven't used these yet. Is there a real benefit compared to using a normal git branch and rebase -i? Maybe I should try them if so. Kevin