3 ms·

Preface: I love Stacked Git and have convinced many co-workers to use it and they all love it. It's really great, especially when used with Phabricator! --- A

by tyhoff 5y ago

Preface: I love Stacked Git and have convinced many co-workers to use it and they all love it. It's really great, especially when used with Phabricator! --- A question for the maintainers...I was enjoying the command `stg publish` to allow myself to keep refreshing patches locally but every so often push to a branch that others non-stg users were pulling and pushing to. The command was removed in 1.0. I'm curious why it was deprecated and removed and if there is a good replacement flow for working with non-stg users on branches I can't force push to.

jpgrayson 5y ago
Ah ha, someone did use `stg publish`! I removed it because it was challenging to test and maintain, its semantics are somewhat complex, and it wasn't clear that it provided value to anyone. If you wouldn't mind making your case on the issue tracker [1], I will reconsider the fate of `stg publish`. [1] https://github.com/stacked-git/stgit/issues https://github.com/stacked-git/stgit/issues
- pm215 5y ago
  I'm not using it any more, but for a while I used stg publish as a way of working with a stack of patches but also providing other people with a "this branch doesn't rebase, you can pull it" interface. It was also nice when working continuously with the same stack of patches (periodically rebasing them onto a moving upstream, cleaning them up, etc) to have the publish view's commits as a record of "this is the delta since the last publish". But it's been years since I had a need for the functionality...
bvrmn 5y ago
`stg publish` was cumbersome to use and I wrote simple bash script: cat ~/bin/stg-update #!/bin/bash set -e current=$(stg top) git push -f origin HEAD:$current It pushes changes into remote branch with same name as a current patch.
- tyhoff 5y ago
  These two commands ultimately do different things. `stg publish` was in the business of not force pushing and only committing the 'delta' between what lived on a branch and the currently applied patches, so that you can `git push [no -f]` to a branch. Definitely cumbersome to use, but it had fair reasons to be cumbersome.

by tyhoff 5y ago

jpgrayson 5y ago

Ah ha, someone did use `stg publish`! I removed it because it was challenging to test and maintain, its semantics are somewhat complex, and it wasn't clear that it provided value to anyone. If you wouldn't mind making your case on the issue tracker [1], I will reconsider the fate of `stg publish`. [1] https://github.com/stacked-git/stgit/issues https://github.com/stacked-git/stgit/issues

pm215 5y ago
I'm not using it any more, but for a while I used stg publish as a way of working with a stack of patches but also providing other people with a "this branch doesn't rebase, you can pull it" interface. It was also nice when working continuously with the same stack of patches (periodically rebasing them onto a moving upstream, cleaning them up, etc) to have the publish view's commits as a record of "this is the delta since the last publish". But it's been years since I had a need for the functionality...

bvrmn 5y ago

`stg publish` was cumbersome to use and I wrote simple bash script: cat ~/bin/stg-update #!/bin/bash set -e current=$(stg top) git push -f origin HEAD:$current It pushes changes into remote branch with same name as a current patch.

tyhoff 5y ago
These two commands ultimately do different things. `stg publish` was in the business of not force pushing and only committing the 'delta' between what lived on a branch and the currently applied patches, so that you can `git push [no -f]` to a branch. Definitely cumbersome to use, but it had fair reasons to be cumbersome.