Re: bug?: stgit creates (unneccessary?) conflicts when pulling

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

 



On 2006-03-01 17:53:53 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> This won't solve the problem since testing whether patch "a" was
> merged upstream will fail because its reverse won't apply cleanly
> onto the upstream HEAD. Of course, you can try combination of
> upstream commits and local patches but it's not really feasible.
>
> As I said, this method doesn't solve all the upstream merge
> situations but it is OK for most of them.

We could perhaps do a little better. Instead of just noting whether
the patch vanishes when reverse-applied, save the top and bottom of
the patch as reverse-applied, and then replace the patch with the
reverse of that. If the patch vanishes, this does what your patch does
right now. If the patch does not vanish, all that remains is the parts
that upstream didn't accept. (And as before, if the patch didn't
reverse-apply cleanly, assume upstream hasn't accepted it at all yet.)

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
      www.treskal.com/kalle
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]