X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/3f7944fdc784eaf73c683bb521a3c5adfde74295..4e0f75a75f3019a7a8f01c94b4e82072e9890c32:/doc/rcs/details.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/rcs/details.mdwn b/doc/rcs/details.mdwn
index e09fcf758..449e129bd 100644
--- a/doc/rcs/details.mdwn
+++ b/doc/rcs/details.mdwn
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ rcs\_commit().  Is rcs\_prepedit() suitable?
 It follows that the HTML rendering and the CGI handling can be completely
 separated parts in ikiwiki.
 
-What repository should [[RecentChanges]] and [[History]] work on?  R1?
+What repository should [[RecentChanges]] and History work on?  R1?
 
 #### Rationale for doing it differently than in the Subversion case
 
@@ -137,6 +137,117 @@ for more details), so I had to invent an ugly hack just for the purpose.
 > it seems to me you could just git-stash them now that git-stash exists.
 > I think it didn't when you first added the git support.. --[[Joey]]
 
+
+>> Yes,  git-stash had not existed before.  What about sth like below?  It
+>> seems to work (I haven't given much thought on the specific implementation
+details).  --[[roktas]]
+
+>>	    # create test files
+>>	    cd /tmp
+>>	    seq 6 >page
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5
+>>	    6
+>>	    sed -e 's/2/2ME/' page >page.me # my changes
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2ME
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5
+>>	    6
+>>	    sed -e 's/5/5SOMEONE/' page >page.someone # someone's changes
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5SOMEONE
+>>	    6
+>>
+>>	    # create a test repository
+>>	    mkdir t
+>>	    cd t
+>>	    cp ../page .
+>>	    git init
+>>	    git add .
+>>	    git commit -m init
+>>
+>>	    # save the current HEAD
+>>	    ME=$(git rev-list HEAD -- page)
+>>	    $EDITOR page # assume that I'm starting to edit page via web
+>>
+>>	    # simulates someone's concurrent commit
+>>	    cp ../page.someone page
+>>	    git commit -m someone -- page
+>>
+>>	    # My editing session ended, the resulting content is in page.me
+>>	    cp ../page.me page
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2ME
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5
+>>	    6
+>>
+>>	    # let's start to save my uncommitted changes
+>>	    git stash clear
+>>	    git stash save "changes by me"
+>>	    # we've reached a clean state
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5SOMEONE
+>>	    6
+>>
+>>	    # roll-back to the $ME state
+>>	    git reset --soft $ME
+>>	    # now, the file is marked as modified
+>>	    git stash save "changes by someone"
+>>
+>>	    # now, we're at the $ME state
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5
+>>	    6
+>>	    git stash list
+>>	    stash@{0}: On master: changes by someone
+>>	    stash@{1}: On master: changes by me
+>>
+>>	    # first apply my changes
+>>	    git stash apply stash@{1}
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2ME
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5
+>>	    6
+>>	    # ... and commit
+>>	    git commit -m me -- page
+>>
+>>	    # apply someone's changes
+>>	    git stash apply stash@{0}
+>>	    cat page
+>>	    1
+>>	    2ME
+>>	    3
+>>	    4
+>>	    5SOMEONE
+>>	    6
+>>	    # ... and commit
+>>	    git commit -m me+someone -- page
+
 By design, Git backend uses a "master-clone" repository pair approach in contrast
 to the single repository approach (here, _clone_ may be considered as the working
 copy of a fictious web user).  Even though a single repository implementation is
@@ -241,3 +352,5 @@ merge again with a merger that inserts conflict markers.  It commits this new
 revision with conflict markers to the repository.  It then returns the text to the
 user for cleanup.  This is less neat than it could be, in that a conflict marked
 revision gets committed to the repository.
+
+## [[bzr]]