Re: what's the Correct git update method keeping local changes

From: Warner Losh <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:39:32 UTC
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 5:19 AM void <> 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..


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?
> --