On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 12:34:49PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > Actually, I'm also curious as to how other people generate the series of > commits for a patch series, when they've actually got a working directory > that contains the end result. I doubt that people actually do their > modifications in patch order, committing each time, without writing > and testing the end result. hack hack git commit -a test <= ohh crap a trivial bug git format-patch HEAD^..HEAD git reset HEAD^ --hard patch -p1 0001* hack hack git commit -a <= reading in old changelog from 0001* The above is easier if you know git I expect. If I find bugs in older patches I just go back more steps. I often (twice or more for each kernel release) throw away my kbuild.git tree and start all over. That gives me a recent kernel to work with and still providing Linux with a linar history. I have considered stgit - but have not tried it. The above works pretty well for me (my fingers and my logic i accused to it now) so the incentive to shift is small. But important note is that publishing is something I defer until some limited test has been done. And when I omit that I have always ended u pushing some crappy stuff that needs to be dealt with. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: 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