From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Including branch info in git format-patch Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20080619210617.GC6529@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080619154251.GA16475@jurassic> <20080619202843.GA6207@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Mukund Sivaraman , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 19 23:07:35 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K9RLl-0001XL-6f for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:07:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751398AbYFSVGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751393AbYFSVGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:25 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4538 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751369AbYFSVGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 20990 invoked by uid 111); 19 Jun 2008 21:06:20 -0000 Received: from c-24-98-46-248.hsd1.ga.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (24.98.46.248) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > You could potentially add a config option to put the branch name inside > > the '[PATCH]' text. This text is generally stripped away before > > applying, so it would still free up the receiver to apply on whatever > > branch they wanted. I don't think it would make sense for git > > development, since we typically use topic branches, so keeping it > > configurable would make sense. > > People would work on individual patches on topic branches that are named > differently from the branch on the other end anyway (the branch that > corresonds to the other end will be used for local integration testing in > such a setup), so I do not see much point in stating which local branch > happened to have been checked out when the patch was generated, in the > output. I think that is totally dependent on the workflow, which is what I was trying to say above. It really depends on how the patch-submitter organizes his branches. > the project's convention what to do with it. The side branch the patch > was developed on may be named "quick-hack", which would not have any > relevance to the final location of where that patch wants to be in. I suspect you would do better to look at branch.quick-hack.merge, so that you say "this was based on upstream's X", not "this is my quick-hack". But there are so many ways this could go wrong, since the patches you're formatting might not even have anything to do with the branch you're on. -Peff