Re: [StGit PATCH 09/13] Clear up the semantics of Series.new_patch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/10/2007, David Kågedal <davidk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On 08/10/2007, Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Series.new_patch already creates a commit, why should we move the
> > functionality to 'pick'? The only call to new_patch with commit=False
> > seems to be from 'uncommit' (and it makes sense indeed).
>
> It might be true that the assertion could be amended so that if
> commit=True, then it is allowed to have top/bottom that doesn't
> correspond to a commit and its parent.

I'll fix this and add a test for pick --reverse.

-- 
Catalin
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux