On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 09:31 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 12/02/07, Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The example below shows that git-pull keeps my commit, but "stg pull" > > discards it by rebasing back to the remote ID. > > I think this is a "feature" but we should've probably leave the > original behaviour as the default. Maybe we should also have this > per-branch rather than per-repository. I don't know the original motivation behind effectively reimplementing "git pull" in StGIT, but it's clear that the StGIT's own implementation needs some polish. I think it's always wrong to lose local commits. I think StGIT should refuse to rebase if a merge would be needed or the rebase would go back in history (in other words, if git-pull would not go to the remote revision). > In StGIT 0.12, git-fetch is used by default rather than git-pull and > StGIT performs the rebasing. We had some discussions on whether this > would break existing workflows and we thought it wouldn't (I don't > usually mix git-commit with stg commands). Maybe such assumptions could be enforced? Perhaps we could consider branch specialization. As it stands now, we can have branches where fast-forward is OK and branches where it's not OK. If we look at it from the user standpoint, the branches could be distinguished by the use model: 1) Tracking branch: pull is OK, commit is not OK, push is not OK. All development is done in StGIT patches and sent to others. 2) Development branch: commit is OK, push is OK, pull is OK but no merges by default. 3) Merge branch: pull is OK, even with automatic merge, commit is OK, merge is OK. I'm not sure if this belongs to git or StGIT. > The solution would be to define the following in your gitconfig file > (either ~/.gitconfig or .git/config; a full example in StGIT's > examples/gitconfig): > > [stgit] > pullcmd = git-pull > pull-does-rebase = no > > The last line would tell StGIT not to do the rebasing and let git-pull > handle it. It's actually my deliberate choice to subject myself to the pains of the default configuration. I don't want to live in backwards compatible environment until it rots away. I'll rather eat the dogfood we are offering to others :) > I agree that for the rebasing case, we should have some warning if > fast-forwarding of the stack's base is not possible so that you could > run 'stg uncommit'. Sounds good to me. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - 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