Re: what's the Correct git update method keeping local changes
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:39:32 UTC
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 5:19 AM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote: > Hello hackers@ > > I looked in the porters and developers handbooks and couldn't find > reference > to a Correct method of working with git, poudriere, the ports tree and > local changes for a use case like mine. > I use the rebase workflow for pending ports commit work. Each change is a commit that I'm "curating" for later. I update main and then rebase -i in case there is anything weird I need to do. This is true for changes I get from bz or stuff I'm working on. This aversion dates back to mercurial patch queues / stash screwing me over a few times 15 or 20 years ago.. Warner Right now my workflow looks like this: > > 1. apply patch either with patch -p0 < patchfile or git apply from the > top of the ports tree > 2. git stash > 3. poudriere ports -u -q > 4. git stash pop > 5. run the poudriere build > > then, subsequent poudriere builds need steps 2-5 repeated. > > I'm wary of git merge/apply because i'm not a dev and so don't want to push > changes. but I want to update the ports tree for poudriere with local > changes > keeping them local. > > What's the best way? > -- > >