Re: hgmq vs. StGIT

On 01/11/05, Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Chris Mason wrote:

quoted

StGIT has the ability to rebase patches via three-way merge.  This is
still on my todo list for mq.

So I'm _neither_ a StGIT not mq user, but I can definitely say that
rebasing with a three-way merge instead of just trying to apply the patch
(whether in reverse like in a merge, or just re-apply it straigt) is
really really nice.

StGIT first tries a "git-diff-tree | git-apply" since it is faster but
when this fails it falls back to a three-way merge. A 'stg status'
command would show the conflicted files and they should be marked as
resolved before refreshing the patch.

One of the good parts of the three-way merge is that it detects when a
patch you sent was fully merged upstream, the local patch becoming
empty after the merge. If not, you either get a conflict or the merge
leaves the patch with only the unmerged parts.

--
Catalin