2008/9/14 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 2008-09-12 23:01:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> This patch converts the sink command to use stgit.lib. The behaviour >> is also changed slightly so that it only allows to sink a set of >> patches if there are applied once, > > "if they are applied"? Without the spelling mistakes - "if there are applied patches (ones)". Of course, unapplied patches can be sinked but when there are no applied patches, it is equivalent to a push and decided to make it fail. >> I'm not sure about the conflict resolution. In this implementation, >> if a conflict happens, the transaction is aborted. In case we allow >> conflicts, I have to dig further on how to implement it with the new >> transaction mechanism (I think "delete" does this). > > goto does it too. The docstring of the StackTransaction class explains > how it works (if it doesn't, we need to improve it): I wasn't used to reading documentation in StGit files :-). Thanks for the info, I'll repost. I'll make the default behaviour to cancel the transaction and revert to the original state unless an option is given to allow conflicts. >> An additional point - the transaction object supports functions like >> pop_patches and push_patch. Should we change them for consistency >> and simplicity? I.e., apart from current pop_patches with predicate >> add functions that support popping a list or a single patch. The >> same goes for push_patch. > > The current set of functions made sense from an implementation > perspective. But you are right that other variants would be helpful > for some callers. I can see calls to pop_patches(lambda pn: pn in patch_list). I think we could have a helper for this. I'll try to post a patch sometime next week. -- 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
