|
|
|
|
|
|
by lumpypua
4189 days ago
|
|
|
Just the user interface. It's a lot easier to fuck up during a rebase. MQ is a lot like git stash on steroids. Super easy to flit between multiple patches that I'm working on and put a change in the appropriate one. Wasn't uncommon for me to touch 3-4 patches in a random order over the course of a few minutes. Let's say I'm working on patches 1, 2, and 3. -- Situation: Currently on 3. I write some code and decide it should be in patch 1. Git: Can't interactively rebase with uncommitted changes. Some sort of stash juggling. MQ: Go down two patches. Commit the changes to the patch. -- Situation: I'd like to introduce a new intermediate patch 1.5. Git: Make a new commit on top of patch 1, rebase the other patches on top of it. If there's potentially conflicting merge errors they need to be addressed immediately—or I'm stuck leaving an alternate history of commit 1 around until I'm ready to deal with merge issues. MQ: Go down two patches. Make a new patch. Deal with the merge errors whenever I go up/apply patches 2 and 3. |
|
|