[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Staging/Master Merge - James' Patchy

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Staging/Master Merge - James' Patchy
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:45:18 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux)

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> If I could have worked out how to split them, while at the same time
> being able to keep track of what changes were still needed, I would
> have done. However, doing things like having a in
> new, with a in snippets, and remembering to keep
> checking that the docs were all up to date and the one in new could be
> deleted was too much for my brain.  The problem was that I believe I
> needed to get them into a single patch for the benefit of patchy, but
> I had them in six patches on my system. I git apply-ed each patch, but
> didn't remember to git add the files.
> TBH that seems a duff aspect of git.

No, it isn't.  git apply _only_ touches the work directory, so whatever
happens, git does not remember anything about it.  Use

git apply --index

if you want git to also _register_ the changes.

> Any other changes to the repo it can deal with.

No.  git does _not_ track _any_ change in the work directory unless you
commit it to the index.

> Add a file and you need to remember to git add it.
> I've now got an even more humungous patch which includes the added
> files. My preference would be to push to staging, patchy and revert if
> there's a problem.
> What's the syntax for a revert?

We use the staging branch exactly to avoid having to revert stuff.
Instead we reset staging.  Only stuff that percolated to master needs to
get reverted in order to remove it.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]