On 2008-06-29 10:42:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 2008/6/25 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > And in the process, make it more powerful: it will now first
> > create a temp patch containing the updates, and then try to merge
> > it into the patch to be updated. If that patch is applied, this is
> > done by popping, pushing, and coalescing; if it is unapplied, it
> > is done with an in-index merge.
>
> Does it make sense to refresh an unapplied patch? Maybe adding a new
> file to the patch but I don't really see a need for this.
A change in a different part of the same file should work as well, I
believe.
But no, I don't have a strong sense that this is super useful. It was
just easy to allow, so I allowed it.
> > Also, whenever path limiting is used, we will now use a temporary
> > index in order to avoid including all staged updates (since they
> > may touch stuff outside the path limiters).
>
> I haven't checked but what is the behaviour in subdirectors? It
> currently refreshes everythink unless "." is specified so that it
> will only refresh the current subdirectory.
That's the new behavior as well. Path limiters are taken to be
realtive to the current working directory, and without limiters we
refresh everything.
> The patch looks fine otherwise.
Thanks for the review.
--
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
