From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Langhoff Subject: git-rev-list and git-format-patch script oddness Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:52:51 +1200 Message-ID: <46a038f905091101529e045af@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: martin.langhoff@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 11 10:53:25 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EENaM-0005wm-5k for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:53:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932451AbVIKIw4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:52:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932454AbVIKIw4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:52:56 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.207]:13943 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932451AbVIKIwz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:52:55 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i8so244454rne for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:52:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=aNvJ1IgsqGSY8iGzq1LCIO2275cXNEv9UoJMEDfQYT+GqFTxWqVqIuJa8eDBSWHqwMKXosmcfcwxveTo4/U5A2dhYDuBofmSAS/XFZ+3VuRBUgIlrI68M5fRbpDam/eImScL4Q/iQjU14EL0+tOeKnrah2D8gQ36fU3IuBCUlII= Received: by 10.38.181.7 with SMTP id d7mr189592rnf; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.101.53 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:52:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Git Mailing List Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: When I run git-format-patch, it insists on outputting merges that have already been merged upstream, regardless of the fact that git-merge-base knows better. Is there a way to get it to skip merged-in patches that git already has detected as merged upstream? cheers, martin