On 2006-11-21 10:06:30 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I personally don't like mixing StGIT and GIT commands unnecessarily,
> unless there is no other option (like "git log" since "stg log" has
> a different meaning). There are people (including me) who use StGIT
> almost exclusively, without relying on the GIT commands. That's why
> I duplicated some of the GIT commands.
I, on the other hand, tend to freely mix git and stgit commands. For
example, I often commit things with the git emacs modes, but I do all
my merging with stgit.
This is all very straightforward once you learn that stgit just adds a
thin layer of extra metadata on top of git. All the really valuable
information is stored in git; what stgit adds is e.g. convenient names
for patches, and the distinction between commits that are patches and
commits that aren't (so that you won't edit supposedly immutable
history by mistake). To me, stgit is a convenient way to edit git
history, which happens to make patchset maintenance very easy.
However, interoperability could be much better than it is. I think
stgit maintains too much extra metadata on top of what git already
has.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
-
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