Re: Commited to wrong branch

["Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>]

On 2009.09.15 15:54:58 +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
> > Just don't use patch(1), there's no sane reason to do that, you're
> > sacrificing all of what git can offer there.
> 
> Oh, yes there is, specially for newcomers used to patch, and how it
> handles conflicts.

Sooner or later you'll hit a merge conflict anyway, and conflict markers
aren't that hard to understand, and IMHO are easier to handle than .rej
files, as you get to edit everything in-place.

> In this case, I happen to know that Howard is a refugee from CVS land
> (the moodle project in this case), and he is familiar with the output
> of patch if things go wrong.

Uhm, CVS uses the same conflict markers that git uses.

> It's not what I'd recommend to someone that is deep in git-land. But
> even myself (with a bit of code in git) sometimes use patch when
> git-apply tries to be too clever and I just want a damn .rej file to
> review and edit with emacs.

Well, you likely shouldn't be using git-apply, which is plumbing, and
can't easily make use of the "index" information in git patches to do a
three-way merge instead of a "stupid" patch application. Instead use
git-am --3way to make git perform a three-way merge, leading to
conflicts instead of plain patch rejection.

And in a case like Howard's, in which nothing is coming from outside the
repo, there's not even any reason to use am. It's already all in there,
so "checkout -m", "stash/stash apply" (uncommitted changes) and
"cherry-pick", "rebase [-i]" are way better than manually dealing with
format-patch + am or even apply.

Björn