Re: Finding the name of the parent branch?

["Santi Béjar" <santi@agolina.net>]

2009/1/30 Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>:
> Santi,
>
>> Maybe if you explain why you want it (a use case) instead of just this
>> specific problem...
>
> To know the proper merge base to display all commits done on a specific
> topic branch.
>

gitk topicbranch ^trackingbranch

But I agree that a way to refer to the tracking branch would be great, as:

branch^{origin}

so you can say, for example:

gitk topicbranch ^topicbranch^{origin}

>>>> Just a counterexample, just rearranging you graph:
>>>>
>>>>                        o---B
>>>>                        /
>>>>                   o---2---o---o---o---C
>>>>                  /
>>>>          ---o---1---o---o---o---A
>>>>
>>>> From you description: For B I would get C and for C I would get A.
>>
>> Please, if you quote text do not edit it (the 1 and the 2 in this case).
>
> Well I've just added 1 and 2, nothing changed in the semantic!
>
>> Yes. Compare your sentence and mine:
>>
>> For B I want to get A and for C I want to get B.
>> For B I would get C and for C I would get A.
>>
>> So for B you get A while I get C, and the equivalent for C.
>
> Ok, that's expected since you have renamed B to C and C to B.

I did not rename B to C and C to B, I just draw them differently.

Let's put name to the commits:

Your tree:


                        i---j---k---C
                        /
                   f---g---h---B
                  /
          ---a---b---c---d---e---A

My tree:

                       h---B
                       /
                  f---g---i---j---k---C
                 /
         ---a---b---c---d---e---A

So the commits in all the branches are equal, the only change is that
I painted B above C.

> So when I said:
>
>    For B I want to get A and for C I want to get B.
>
> It is equivalent to your (just rename B and C).:
>
>   For B I would get C and for C I would get A.
>
> Frankly I do not see your point... That's maybe the cause of the
> problem I'm having....

At least part of. You have to understand the branch model:

git model:
  * a branch is just a pointer to a commit
  * you cannot say "this commit was done in that branch"
  * what you can say is "this commit is contained in that branch"

in contrast to other models:
  * where a commit really belongs to a branch (it is specified at
commit time somehow)
  * you can say "this commit was done in that branch"

HTH,
Santi