Re: [Gnu-arch-users] How to avoid conflict when backporting/cherypicking

[Aaron Bentley]

Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > Actually, I use sync-tree as part of a two-step operation I call "reject".
> It sounds kinda neat to be able to say "oh, I'm
> just going to reject that patch" and do so by pulling in their patch
> log entries, but the consequence seems to be that later on if the
> patch gets cleaned up or you change your mind, you've already screwed
> with history.

If you change your mind about a reject, you just reject your rejection.

> I think it'd be better to have another layer where you can specify
> dont-care patches which tla missing would skip over -- an entry in
> your patch log should mean that a patch has been *completely* merged
> in and arch's history sensitive merging depends on this.

If you merge a patch *completely* you can still alter some of all of the 
changes that patch introduced, and you will change some of it, 
eventually in the course of the project's development.  There's no 
difference between merging and undoing a patch vs only merging the logs. 
 Arch's history-sensitive merging is the reason you'd do it in the 
first place-- it will be helped, rather than hindered, by a reject.

Aaron