From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:47:39 +0200 Message-ID: <44325CDB.2000101@op5.se> References: <4430D352.4010707@vilain.net> <7vsloucuxk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <4431B60E.3030008@vilain.net> <44323C52.2030803@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 04 13:48:05 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 1FQk0t-0006Q1-QD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:48:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932179AbWDDLrl (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:47:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932356AbWDDLrl (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:47:41 -0400 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:34506 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932179AbWDDLrk (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:47:40 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.20] (host-213.88.215.14.addr.se.sn.net [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81336BCBC; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:47:39 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jakub Narebski In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > >>Wouldn't "git commit -M -b topic", for committing to a different branch >>than what is checked out (-b) and also to the checked out branch (-M) >>have the same beneficial effects, but without the complexity of hydras >>and patch dependency theory? It would only remove the cherry-pick stage >>though, but perhaps it's good enough. Although when I think about it, -b >> for committing to another branch and -B for doing the >>above probably makes more sense. > > > Do you mean that you commit current state to the checked out (working) > branch, and commit *changes* (i.e. apply patch) to a different branch? > 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. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231