Re: Can I remove stg sync --undo ?

On 2008-07-07 21:47:13 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

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

quoted

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

quoted

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.

quoted

We need a sync undo test.

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

OK, then I'll write a simple test that makes sure undo and sync
interact the way I imagine they should. ;-)

quoted

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 :-).

But you too get to live with the design decisions ...

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle