Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited

Robert Haas wrote:
> > What is it about add/deletes that it doesn't do? ?Is the problem 'git
> > add' creates a stage already? ?How is that a problem?
>
> Tom is slightly incorrect. Deletions work fine with git commit -a.
> git already knows about the files, so everything just works. However,
> it won't pick up on added files, because it can't distinguish between
> a file that you want added to the repository and a stray file you left
> lying around and assumes the latter. But I don't see that this takes
> anything away from your point. You can certainly just work on the

OK, so I just somehow made a valid git suggestion. I think I need to
lay down. :-O

> patch in each repository separately and then commit everything all at
> once at the end, if you're so inclined. Of course, as Tom points out,
> it's a lot nicer to apply patches in a way that allows git to try to
> auto-merge for you. Sometimes it works, and when it doesn't work
> having the merge conflict stuff in the file is still better than
> having a .rej hunk leftover that you have to figure out what to do
> with. So personally I don't intend to do it that way, but as Larry
> Wall said about Perl, There's More Than One Way To Do It.

My back-patches are usually super-simple (everyone laughs) so my patch
files are trival to apply.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +