Re: Can I remove stg sync --undo ?

2008/7/5 Karl Hasselström [off-list ref]:

On 2008-07-04 23:05:11 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

2008/7/4 Karl Hasselström [off-list ref]:

quoted

On 2008-07-03 23:02:28 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

The sync performs three operations - push, merge and refresh (if
the refresh is automatic after merge, it doesn't update the
backup information since it was done by merge).

If merge fails, the refresh is manual after solving the
conflicts. I suspect this will be recorded as a separate step
for undo

Yeah, the new undo stuff will currently handle sync just like e.g.
push and pop: write one log entry when the command's all done,
plus one extra just before the conflicting push if there is one.
So you can always undo the entire command; and in case of
conflicts, you also have the option of undoing just the
conflicting push. Is this enough for sync?

There are two operations that can conflict for sync - pushing a
patch and the actual sync'ing, i.e. a three-way merge with the patch
to be synchronised with (kind of fold).

My guess is that conflicts of the first type would work out of the box
(i.e. they'd get an extra log entry) while conflicts of the second
type would not.

I don't really care as long as I can get back to the patch state
before running the sync command if anything goes wrong. So, one undo
level would be enough.

We need a sync undo test.

Yes but not sure what how undo would behave in this situation yet.

quoted

quoted

quoted

(BTW, is resolved take into account for undo?).

Hmmm, what do you mean by "resolved"?

The current resolved command - the clearing of the conflicting
entries in the index.

With just "stg undo" (or reset or redo), you get the usual
new-infrastructure check about dirty index and working tree (the whole
index must be clean, and the parts of the worktree we need to touch
must be clean). Which prevents you from undoing a conflicting push,
for example.

With the --hard flag, any uncleanliness in index or worktree simply
gets zapped (just like with git reset --hard). I'm not 100% happy with
this -- what I'd really like is to zap only the files that we need to
touch. But I haven't figured out a good way to do that.

OK, not much to comment here, it's your implementation :-).

-- 
Catalin