I've been trying out a number of DVCS tools recently and finally found that git is the best fit for me. There is one thing I found missing, though. The problem is that there are usually two distinct concepts: -- topic branches, representing longer-term ongoing development in a certain direction, large-scale features, etc, -- patches that represent complete functionality, to be committed upstream, but continuously improved. My local repositories are usually a combination of both. I will often have a number of feature patches that I don't want to push upstream just yet. These patches change often. My topic branches will all want to use them, in their latest form/revision. This is not a workflow that you can easily represent with any of today's DVCS tools. One can do this with careful cherry-picking and merging, but it is a lot of manual work and clutters up history with lots of merge commits. StGIT is *almost* there. It lets you manage a pile of patches, modify them, apply them selectively, as well as update the mainstream repository and reapply local patches. It fails in two ways: 1) when you want to reuse the same patches on multiple branches. One-way migration is doable (not pleasant, but doable), but if you modify a patch in one of your branches, your other branches which use the same patch will not see the change. And 2) StGIT patches are simple by design, and you can't have internal commit history within a patch, which is a problem for larger features. Which brings me to my point. I think we need a system that can maintain "live branches". We already have impressive systems for dealing with patches and we have made the patch into a first-class citizen of our software development world. Now, instead of statically tracking commits and following a one-way development history, let's have live branches -- branches that can change, causing code that depends on them to change. The way this would work is I would have one or two long-term development branches, and each of those would depend on a list of "live branches", managed by a tool similar to StGIT. I should be able to commit to either the main development branch, or to one of the "live branches", in which case I should be able to easily "resync" the main development branch (do a merge or a rebase, but I would prefer the tool to first remove old merge commits, so as not to clutter history). The tool should also let me pick a commit I've made and move it to one of the live branches easily (similar to stgit). Does this make sense, or am I missing something very obvious? --J. PS: I am obviously aware that this is something which is suitable for local development work only. -- 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
