From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Peter_Valdemar_M=F8rch_=28Lists=29=22?= <4ux6as402@sneakemail.com> Subject: Re: Git (svn) merge - but ignore certain commits? Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:17:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4966513C.1010707@sneakemail.com> References: <49562749.9060705@sneakemail.com> <49663CA2.90102@sneakemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Peter Harris git-at-peter.is-a-geek.org |Lists|" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 08 20:45:54 2009 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 1LL0P9-0007Wk-Ba for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:18:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762329AbZAHTRW convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:17:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761229AbZAHTRV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:17:21 -0500 Received: from smtp27.orange.fr ([80.12.242.96]:15770 "EHLO smtp27.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760858AbZAHTRU (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:17:20 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2718.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 023DE1C000A5; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:17:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.39] (ANice-157-1-29-28.w90-28.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.28.172.28]) by mwinf2718.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 98D491C00087; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:17:17 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090108191717626.98D491C00087@mwinf2718.orange.fr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Peter Harris git-at-peter.is-a-geek.org |Lists| wrote: > Well, the real problem is that it *isn't* a repeated merge. Subversio= n > rebased your trunk on you, so you... >=20 >> I ended up using git cherry-pick, and diff and patch / git diff and = git >> apply. >=20 > ...wind up needing to do this. >=20 > Don't rebase trunk (which implies ditching subversion, > (un)fortunately), and repeated merges should Just Work. See, for > example, the git repository itself, where the master branch is > repeatedly merged into next. Ah, yes. I understand. Thanks for making it more clear to me. There are= =20 two different problems at play here: 1) git svn doesn't help with the fact that svn can't handle the repeate= d=20 merge problem (just noise here) 2) The git-only repeated-merge problem still exists, if I want a commit= =20 on the branch, but *do not* want it merged back to "master". This I=20 still don't see a solution for. E.g.: ---A---B---C---D--+ "master" \--E---F---G-/ "branch" Here I want F and G merged back to "master", but *not* E (which is a=20 quick-and-dirty but safe version of B). That still seems not to be=20 possible. What I did was: ---A---B---C---D--+- "master" | / |\--F---G----+ "devbranch" | \ \--E----------+- "branch" (So F and G got merged from "devbranch" to both "master" and "branch",=20 but E stayed on "branch" only) I could do that because the system worked somewhat without E and I was=20 able to develop/test F and G without E. But I'd still be out of luck if= =20 I needed to work on "branch". There seems to me to be no way in the=20 first two-branch scenario to do repeated merges from "branch" to=20 "master" if I need to avoid that E gets merged back to "master". But thanks, Peter, for helping me understand. "git svn" and the fact=20 that E happened to be a revert where just noise and had nothing to do=20 with the core problem (2). That still has no solution, or am I missing=20 something? Peter --=20 Peter Valdemar M=F8rch http://www.morch.com