[PATCH] qf: Add more wiggle helpers.

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:39:21PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:00:55AM +0000, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:00:50PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > When working with wiggle to easily solve rebasing
> > > conflicts we also need to be able to easily continue,
> > > easily see the impacted files and easily clean the
> > > repo to avoid ending up with many .rej and .porig files.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > > Cc: James Ausmus <james.ausmus at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  qf | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/qf b/qf
> > > index b28ca70ddcfd..e4bb2e95e17d 100755
> > > --- a/qf
> > > +++ b/qf
> > > @@ -432,6 +432,38 @@ function qf_stage
> > >  	echo All applied patches successfully staged
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +function qf_wiggle_clean
> > 
> > Is this really supposed to be a subcmd? I know we already have
> > qf_wiggle_push, but I think the fact we are using wiggle should just be
> > an implementation detail. Thoughts?
> 
> well... you have a point.
> I believe it is useful for the cases we end up fixing the conflict
> manually and using quilt and latter notice that we have things dirty.
> 
> but if we do this on continue and maybe before wiggle push that
> could be a local function.
> 
> can we add the call to wiggle push?

I'm fine either way. I just don't like exposing the internals, but it's
already there and being used. We can clean up later if we think this can
be hidden.

Lucas De Marchi