2008/6/29 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. It seems harmless, unless someone finds some unusual behaviour. What is the conflict behaviour? Is the refresh aborted? For unapplied patches, it is more complicated to let the user solve the conflict. -- 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
