Hi Stephen, Stephan Beyer writes: > first, some notes on my git-sequencer 2008 branches that can be found at > http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git ... (Not sure if I remember > everything correctly) > > I've settled to develop within the "seq-builtin-dev" branch and I > sometimes merged Junio's "master" into that branch to catch up. > The "seq-builtin-dev" branch is the important one. Thanks! Jonathan told me about it earlier, and I've already started ripping out code from the seq-builtin-dev branch :) I found your 't3350-sequencer.sh' especially interesting. > Using git rebase -i (using git-sequencer) I sometimes remanaged the > branch to "seq-builtin-rfc" that should represent a snapshot of a > potential patch queue. My last rebase processes of the seq-builtin-rfc > branch were pretty unmotivated and hence messy. > > I have not touched the repo very often after GSOC'08 and I stopped > touching it (as I stopped following recent Git development) "20 months > ago" apparently. Quite many things may have changed since then. Okay, got it. I saw a few patches in 'master' that were based on your work though. Some of the patches in Christian's series also refer to your work. > The file A_SEQUENCER_TODO_FILE (added 2009-08-03) in the repo describes > the missing and buggy pieces to fix so that _I_ (only me) would have > been 100 per cent satisfied with that git-sequencer. > http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git/blob/9e4b4d92f681a47e3d7ad2152d2391b2ab125a0c:/A_SEQUENCER_TODO_FILE > [Some notes are also "strategy notes" to get things accepted, like the > changes on "rebase -i -p" which are "not loved by everyone". ;-)] Okay. > On 2011-04-03, 22:50 +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > > * Is this a good change? Are there any forseeable issues? > > I want to mention an issue that I have not foreseen before: merges. > (You need merges, for example, when doing rebase -i -p ... -p as in > --preserve-merges.) Ah, that's not something I thought about immediately. > When I began, there was code in the "next" branch that added the TODO > instructions "mark", "reset" and "merge" to do merges properly and I > based my work on it. The original pieces by Jörg Sommer can still be > found here: > http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git/shortlog/6fabd85e8a777c26f3ae8ce11cb7f4265502ea7f > > However, there have been strong opinions that the "mark"/"reset"/"merge" > instructions are ugly and unpleasant to users and not even necessary (at > least for rebase--interactive... and for sequencer, maybe, maybe not). > Hence, the code in "next" has been rejected later. Interesting historical note. > During GSOC 2008 I regrettably underestimated the importance to > communicate with the Git folks about these things. That's one of the > main reasons the sequencer pieces did not get into master. And after > GSOC'08 I had too little time for this... :-/ > > Well, the merging thing is the only *real* issue I remember. Point noted. Yes, I noticed that your sequencer was mostly functionally complete. I'll make sure that I spend a lot of interacting with the community. Thank you for your elaborate note! I really appreciate it :) Hopefully, we will have that sequencer by next year. -- Ram -- 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