From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: dealing with local patches - mercurial queues over bzr/git checkout Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 05:42:49 +0200 Message-ID: <83mwj8sbie.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1389035494635-308685.post@n5.nabble.com> <83r48ksys4.fsf@gnu.org> <87vbxw93t8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389066190 4606 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2014 03:43:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 07 04:43:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W0NZT-0007Nq-ST for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 04:43:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38631 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0NZT-0005Rt-79 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:43:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51641) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0NZL-0005Rn-DF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:43:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0NZF-0008Ln-He for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:43:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:38727) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0NZF-0008Ld-9H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:43:01 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZ000M00HYLYA00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 05:42:59 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZ000MA4IBNQZ70@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 05:42:59 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87vbxw93t8.fsf@Rainer.invalid> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167565 Archived-At: > From: Achim Gratz > Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 22:51:47 +0100 > > I find that in Git simply rebasing the local branch on top of upstream > (which can be configured to be done instead of a merge when you "pull") > keeps that history inside the local branch intact while producing a nice > linear history when you finally push it upstream (with or without > rewriting it before the push), without the messiness of many superfluous > merges. But then if I need to bisect the merge done by you, I see a single large commit, instead of the series of small ones. And that makes it hard both to bisect and, if needed, revert a small part of the merge. Anyway, this is an age-old argument. I don't want to start another one; if you like your workflow, and we decide that it is OK to do that in Emacs development, so be it. I just wanted to point out that what Jarek does is not without price. > It's a slightly different workflow than what you will find in most > tutorials, but I feel it actually works better than patch stacks I find that patch stacks are unnecessary most of the time. Just firing up another branch solves most of the problems that stacks are supposed to solve.