Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains

[Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 06:47, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the 
>>>result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged 
>>>in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The 
>>>resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was 
>>>committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the 
>>>testing-branch.
> 
> 
> To be consistent, I think the result should be "as if the change
> was commited only to the topic-branch and then the topic-branch
> was *merged* into the testing-branch", since you start your
> testing branch as "being the result of several merged topic-branches".
> 
> I do that (manually) all the time, with:
> 
> 	$ git checkout next
>         $ hack hack hack
> 
>         $ git checkout -m one/topic
>         $ git commit -o this-path that-path
>         $ git checkout next
>         $ git pull . one/topic
> 
> Giving a short-hand for the last four-command sequence would
> certainly be nice.
> 

Ah. That's easier than what I originally looked at doing.

> 
>>I am your number one fan!  If I finish reading these 600+
>>messages, will I find out you have already implemented it,
>>it's committed, and you just need me to test it now? :-)
> 
> 
> Likewise... ;-)
> 

Sorry to disappoint you so far. I'll see if I can turn up my 
shell-skills a notch or two and get the hang of the commit-script enough 
to implement it.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231