From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sverre Rabbelier" Subject: Re: Including branch info in git format-patch Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:15:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20080619154251.GA16475@jurassic> <20080619202843.GA6207@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Reply-To: sverre@rabbelier.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Jeff King" , "Mukund Sivaraman" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Junio C Hamano" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 19 23:17:44 2008 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 1K9RVo-00059q-FA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:17:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753984AbYFSVQT (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:16:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751290AbYFSVQS (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:16:18 -0400 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.30]:45853 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753895AbYFSVP7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:59 -0400 Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 31so223701yxl.1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=u+EfVX+dF2d9WMG6NoOHvyrrkhtFWk5SCYwM86TWQJo=; b=sHIONPIlwFDqtYmlP96Vj1f5D+pzjd0teI+zGdR5aPrKcYVkBIx24aHO8OSHvwZrFV VOaRPT1ODT3i3T10FFeHX8rVYxsu53E8a1v1eXUrLUov92XSANnr257S8qad3yTGxFNV O9pB8x6YlnhAAK4DAuO6j7P+0tHk3+32DJ4qQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=kJtuswH4RBO2BQb/lsBNmss2RSf0zzljGB5F/ZjxmDxlie8OvQkhF0YXAAF2zUOHfM 52XZlC582FwE/6jzyMbJNtrP56eLyzIvCkfplbHa9IlZDxU5KxMjVorA+GRAfYrz0FmN l+A/VIAukY3CEv2wDc5vWUJ4xJOXQhVfAUuvs= Received: by 10.150.182.15 with SMTP id e15mr3817883ybf.72.1213910158045; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.149.14 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> You could potentially add a config option to put the branch name inside >> the '[PATCH]' text. This text is generally stripped away before >> applying, so it would still free up the receiver to apply on whatever >> branch they wanted. I don't think it would make sense for git >> development, since we typically use topic branches, so keeping it >> configurable would make sense. > > People would work on individual patches on topic branches that are named > differently from the branch on the other end anyway (the branch that > corresonds to the other end will be used for local integration testing in > such a setup), so I do not see much point in stating which local branch > happened to have been checked out when the patch was generated, in the > output. I think what Mukund is asking for is a way to specify what upstream branch the commit should be applied to. This would be a feature to help the person who is going to do the applying, so it is ok if the person formatting the patch has to do a little work for that (e.g., specify which upstream branch to format-patch as a cmdline option) > If you have a history of this shape: > which "branch label" would you give to the format-patch output that shows > commit A? It may apply to both master and next, and it is really up to > the project's convention what to do with it. The side branch the patch > was developed on may be named "quick-hack", which would not have any > relevance to the final location of where that patch wants to be in. You would give it the label of the branch you want it applied to! -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier