Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

On 01/11/05, Petr Baudis [off-list ref] wrote:

Did anyone do any current detailed comparison between hg mq and StGIT?

Not AFAIK. I looked a bit at mq but didn't have time to play with it.

I'm very happy with StGIT, modulo few UI gripes I'm still not getting
around to fix, and the fact that I cannot version my changes to patches
- this is one advantage of having quilt stuff tracked by GIT, I think,
but that feels ugly.

That's not too far away. Chuck Lever has a patch (and there were some
other discussions in the past) for tracking the history of a patch.
Basically, there would be another commit object, not reachable from
HEAD but only via an StGIT command, which would chain all the versions
of a patch. You would be able to view them with gitk for example.

My main issue was whether we should store every state resulted from a
refresh  or use a separate command (somebody suggested 'freeze') to
mark the states that should be preserved in the history. Chuck's patch
implements the first. The drawback is that a future 'stg prune'
command would not be able to remove the history and some states of the
patch might not be useful (there are times when I do a refresh only to
pop the patch and modify a different one, without any logical meaning
for the state of the patch).

I'm open to other suggestions as well. Otherwise, Chuck's patch should
do the job.

--
Catalin