From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukund Sivaraman Subject: Re: Including branch info in git format-patch Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:56:27 +0530 Message-ID: <20080619212626.GA29643@jurassic> 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=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 19 23:27:47 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 1K9RfM-0008Rj-2Q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:27:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751643AbYFSV0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:26:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751779AbYFSV0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:26:37 -0400 Received: from mail.banu.com ([67.19.28.195]:50180 "EHLO mail.banu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751600AbYFSV0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:26:37 -0400 Received: from ? (unknown [59.93.72.96]) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974E31110066; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:26:33 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: > If you have a history of this shape: > > (other cruft) > \ > ----o---o next > / > o---o---o---o master > / / > ---o---o---A > > which "branch label" would you give to the format-patch output that shows > commit A? It may apply to both master and next, and it is really up to > 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 follow what you are saying. In our workflow case, pointing out the remote (public) branch name should be sufficient (as this's the public shared branch among us, and all patchsets shared with others are against the public branches). Perhaps I can add it to the [PATCH] text in the subject line as Jeff suggests. My problem is that I can't send a patch out to the list for other developers to try, without some annotation for them, of which branch to try it on. Mukund