Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism

Subject: Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism
From: Lassi Tuura (lat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-23 02:24:49

Hi,

> So basically, in something like perforce, I can group the files into
> changelists, and then forget about it until something is completely done
> and ready to commit. I understand I'm losing other features (small commits,
> being able to easily set it all aside, etc), but this is my common
> workflow.

If I understood your description correctly, you might want to look into
using stacked git (stgit, http://www.procode.org/stgit/).

I've found it convenient for what others have described as the local cycle
for patch polish. Your git branch is set up to manage a patch stack, and you
go back and forth between patches, transfer patches between branches, make
amendments if you find bugs or typos, reorder patches, merge with patches
submitted and included upstream, etc. The patch stack change history itself
is also versioned, so if desperate you can go back and see what you did to
break the code.

If your version control use tends to be simple, and your upstream is happy
enough to accept rebase-based history for pull requests, or just wants a
patch not a git tree to pull from, you might find tools like stgit useful.
It's still all git underneath so you can still do all the advanced stuff
people have mentioned, if you discover you need to.

Regards,
Lassi