From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:03:17 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 04 13:03:36 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 1FQjJu-0008MF-Bz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:03:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964954AbWDDLDb (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:03:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751854AbWDDLDb (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:03:31 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:21145 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751853AbWDDLDb (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:03:31 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FQjJo-0008LV-FV for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:03:29 +0200 Received: from 193.0.122.19 ([193.0.122.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:03:28 +0200 Received: from jnareb by 193.0.122.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:03:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.0.122.19 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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? -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland