From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Philip Oakley" Subject: Re: [RFC] New kind of upstream branch: base branch Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:35:26 +0100 Organization: OPDS Message-ID: References: Reply-To: "Philip Oakley" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: "Felipe Contreras" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 16 21:35:33 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ud3xc-0001nw-EI for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:35:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753634Ab3EPTfa (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2013 15:35:30 -0400 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]:12187 "EHLO out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751967Ab3EPTfY (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2013 15:35:24 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuINAFQ0lVFOl3Gk/2dsb2JhbABbgweDc4U/uEgEAQMBfBd0ghoFAQEFCAEBGRUeAQEhCwIDBQIBAxUBAgICBSECAhQBBAgSBgcXBgoJCAIBAgMBh2kDE6peiHcNiE+BJosigW1qgkkyYQOOaIZqjgOFI4MROw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,686,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="409924914" Received: from host-78-151-113-164.as13285.net (HELO PhilipOakley) ([78.151.113.164]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 16 May 2013 20:35:20 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: From: "Felipe Contreras" Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:46 AM > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Philip Oakley > wrote: > >> Sound a reasonable idea. On some patches I was working on I had to >> [chose >> to] add a tag for the base which made it easier to rebase later. > > And was the 'upstream' branch somehow not appropriate for some reason? If I remember correctly, I had a short branch based on 'pu', which was rewound, so I wanted to rebase that short branch onto the new 'pu'. This creates a confusion between old-pu and new-pu. Having a marker for the 'base' at the branch point allowed an easy specification of the branch I think I misunderstood your proposal. I thought that it would effectively save a marker (e.g. the sha1) for the base point of the branch, it may have been something similar to a [lightweight] tag, it could have been just local or could have been transferable, I hadn't thought it further. Philip