Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:59:23PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 07:16:50PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > Ahem...  Use of git-cherry-pick preserves commit information just fine.
> > > 
> > > Not by default, at least (note they said "commiters", not "authors"):
> > 
> > That's why you give it -r.
> 
> Hmm. "-r" is a no-op to git-cherry-pick.
 
*duh*

OK, I plead the lack of caffeine when reading the original posting.
-r used to be "reproduce the changeset", but that _excludes_ committer.
Nevermind.

FWIW, I prefer to keep many branches and use suffix (.b<number>) to
distinguish between them.  And cherry-pick/reorder/split/collapse
as needed on transition to the next one.  At least that avoids
some problems for secondary trees - branches do not jump.

Since branches tend to be relatively small, they don't get conflicts
that open and I can postpone switch to new branch until it really
has to be done.

I don't know how to deal with tricky branch topology; every time when I
get to structure like <branch X is on top of Y+Z> it becomes very painful
to work on all these topics in parallel.  For trees maintained by different
people... <shudder>