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 17:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20080619210804.GA6700@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080619154251.GA16475@jurassic> <20080619202843.GA6207@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080619210617.GC6529@sigill.intra.peff.net> 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 23:09:12 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 1K9RNR-0002CG-UA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:09:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751582AbYFSVIK (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:08:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751522AbYFSVIJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:08:09 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4543 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751032AbYFSVIJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:08:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 21020 invoked by uid 111); 19 Jun 2008 21:08:08 -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 17:08:08 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:08:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080619210617.GC6529@sigill.intra.peff.net> 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 05:06:17PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > 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. Side note: if you have a particular workflow, it might make sense, rather than using format-patch directly, to codify that workflow in another script which says "ok, this is how I grab a branch and send it upstream". And in that case, you could look up "here's where I branched from" and feed it into the patch via format-patch's --subject-prefix option. -Peff