On 2008-06-29 12:07:42 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 2008/6/29 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > On 2008-06-29 10:42:32 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
First, the refresh is stored in a temp patch. Then, that patch is
popped. Then we try to coalesce the temp patch and the target patch;
if this fails due to conflicts that we can't represent because we have
no index and worktree to work with for unapplied patches, we just
leave the temp patch in the stack for the user to deal with. (E.g. by
trying to apply the two patches and sort out the conflicts, by keeping
the temp patch separate, or by coalescing it with a different patch.)
--
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
