From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:55:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4q0oyt3w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <4430D352.4010707@vilain.net> <7vsloucuxk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <4431B60E.3030008@vilain.net> <44323C52.2030803@op5.se> <44325CDB.2000101@op5.se> <1145556505.5314.149.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 20 20:55:55 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWeJY-0002KG-EY for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:55:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750863AbWDTSzd (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:55:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750855AbWDTSzd (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:55:33 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:63656 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750742AbWDTSzc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:55:32 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060420185532.ZXAM24981.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:55:32 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1145556505.5314.149.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> (Jon Loeliger's message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:08:25 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jon Loeliger writes: > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 06:47, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > >> No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the >> result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged >> in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The >> resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was >> committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the >> testing-branch. To be consistent, I think the result should be "as if the change was commited only to the topic-branch and then the topic-branch was *merged* into the testing-branch", since you start your testing branch as "being the result of several merged topic-branches". I do that (manually) all the time, with: $ git checkout next $ hack hack hack $ git checkout -m one/topic $ git commit -o this-path that-path $ git checkout next $ git pull . one/topic Giving a short-hand for the last four-command sequence would certainly be nice. > I am your number one fan! If I finish reading these 600+ > messages, will I find out you have already implemented it, > it's committed, and you just need me to test it now? :-) Likewise... ;-)