On 2007-10-08 14:16:10 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 14/09/2007, David Kågedal <davidk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > + assert commit or (top and bottom)
> > + assert not before_existing or (top and bottom)
> > + assert not (commit and before_existing)
> > + assert (top and bottom) or (not top and not bottom)
> > + assert not top or (bottom == git.get_commit(top).get_parent())
>
> The last assertion here prevents the use of 'stg pick --reverse'.
> This command creates an unapplied patch with top and bottom reversed
> and pushes it to force a three-way merge.
>
> It seems to work OK if I comment it out but I wonder whether it will
> break in the future with the planned removal of the top and bottom
> files.
I think the assert represents a real constraint, namely that there has
to be a 1:1 correspondance between patches and commits.
Couldn't "stg pick --reverse" create a new commit and use that? That
is, given that we want to revert commit C, create a new commit C* with
tree(C*) := tree(parent(C))
parent(C*) := C
Creating just one new commit object seems like a cheap thing to do.
And shouldn't there be a test for this? :-)
--
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
