From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:46:28 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: git-debrebase: Do not mind stitching an unlaundered branch
X-Git-Tag: archive/debian/5.0~62
X-Git-Url: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c4ba5f47ca8674d6212dd9e76a4ee4185e815a75;hp=c4ba5f47ca8674d6212dd9e76a4ee4185e815a75;p=dgit.git

git-debrebase: Do not mind stitching an unlaundered branch

 <Diziet> I discover that stitch treats non-launderedness as a snag.
 <Diziet> This is not quite compatible with these newfangled
          push-your-unlaundered-stuff workflows.
 <Diziet> It would be possible to make one of prepush or stitch
          (currently synonyms) behave differently in this respect.

 <spwhitton> do you know why stitch treats non-launderedness as a snag?
 <spwhitton> given that we expect [most people] to use `git debrebase
          conclude`, which launders, and never invoke `git debrebase
          stitch` explicitly, it would be okay to change that such
          that `git debrebase stitch` does not consider
          non-launderedness to be a snag.

 <Diziet> I think it does that just because I am the kind of person
          who thinks, when writing some routine, "what could I check
          here?" :-)
 <Diziet> I think you are perhaps right that it ought not to.
 <Diziet> "conclude" didn't exist then of course.

 <spwhitton> okay.  git-debrebase(1) could note "you probably want
          conclude because you probably want to launder"

 <Diziet> Mmmm.

Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
---