Re: [PATCH] git-svn: remove --first-parent, add --upstream

[Peter Baumann <waste.manager@gmx.de>]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:14:30AM +0200, Lars Hjemli wrote:
> On 9/6/07, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
> > Wait, actually.  --upstream won't ever populate the refs array in
> > working_head_info for dcommit
> 
> Sorry, I didn't realize that working_head_info() collected commit-ids
> later used by dcommit.  But to implement --upstream we could maybe do
> something like this:
> 
> sub working_head_info {
>   my ($head, $refs) = @_;
> 
>   if (defined $_upstream) {
>     working_head_info_traverse($head, \$refs);
>     return working_head_info_traverse($_upstream, undef);
>   }
> 
>   return working_head_info_traverse($head, \$refs);
> }
> 
> sub working_head_info_traverse {
>   my ($head, $refs) = @_;
>   my ($fh, $ctx) = command_output_pipe('log', '--no-color',
> '--first-parent', $head);
>   ...
> 
> 
> (This was written straight into firefox, late at night, by a perl
> illiterate. Please be gentle...)
> 

Sorry, but isn't --upstream just the wrong way to do what you want?
Why should I specify a GIT commit to leat git-svn figure out on what
upstream SVN branch I want to commit? To me, this seems a little
backwards. Wouldn't it be much more pleasant to say something like

	git-svn dcommit --on the_branch

whereas 'the_branch' is the name of the upstream branch as specified
in the fetch/branch section in the git config? If I do a dcommit I know
*exactly* on which svn branch it should go, so why can't I specify it on
the cmdline? ...  or did I miss something obvious?

-Peter