From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Is this an acceptable workflow in git-svn, or a user error? Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:44:59 +1200 Message-ID: <466BABFB.8080208@vilain.net> References: <7vy7itdjv6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070609193835.GB32225@muzzle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Wong X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 10 09:45:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HxI6u-0006uH-As for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:45:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761810AbXFJHpP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:45:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761747AbXFJHpP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:45:15 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:35960 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761607AbXFJHpN (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:45:13 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 635F213A4FE; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:45:12 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (203-97-235-49.cable.telstraclear.net [203.97.235.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E5A13A4F4; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:45:08 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060615) In-Reply-To: <20070609193835.GB32225@muzzle> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Wong wrote: >> Is my understanding correct? >> > > Yes. Since dcommit uses rebase, it'll rewrite history. > Maybe these new lightweight annotations could be a way around that? Sam.