{"thread":{"id":"30923","subject":"Feature request: show branches in interactive commit","startedAt":"2012-06-28T07:54:24Z","lastAt":"2012-06-28T08:53:57Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Philipp Marek","Johannes Sixt"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"194406","messageId":"fd93774cb5ed6d4dee090eb2b0be952e.squirrel@webmail.hitco.org","threadId":"30923","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Feature request: show branches in interactive commit","fromName":"Philipp Marek","fromEmail":"philipp@marek.priv.at","sentAt":"2012-06-28T07:54:24Z","receivedAt":"2012-06-28T07:54:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philipp@marek.priv.at","avatar":null},"body":"Hello everyone,\n\nI'd like to get a bit of additional output in \"git rebase\".\n\nSay that \"123458\" is a commit with \"branch1\" associated; then I'd hope for output like\n\n    pick 123456 ...\n    pick 123457 ...\n    pick 123458 ...\n    #x git branch \"branch1\" --force # move the branch?\n    pick 123459 ...\n    pick 12345a ...\n\nI have a few feature branches that are stacked upon each other; when moving a commit\n\"down\" to the release-branch I'd like to have the other branches at the matching \"new\"\ncommit.\n\nOf course I can simply fix up the \"rebase\" output in my editor - but I guess that might\nhelp a few people, that's why I'm proposing it here.\n\n\n[ Yes, perhaps I'm doing it wrong, and should be using merge or something else instead;\nbut it's the way I work, and I think it's a small enough change that won't cause\nproblems, so I'm asking for it. ]\n\n\nBest regards,\n\nPhil\n"},{"id":"194409","messageId":"4FEC1BA5.8030307@viscovery.net","threadId":"30923","inReplyTo":"fd93774cb5ed6d4dee090eb2b0be952e.squirrel@webmail.hitco.org","subject":"Re: Feature request: show branches in interactive commit","fromName":"Johannes Sixt","fromEmail":"j.sixt@viscovery.net","sentAt":"2012-06-28T08:53:57Z","receivedAt":"2012-06-28T08:53:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"j6t@kdbg.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14810926?v=4"},"body":"Am 6/28/2012 9:54, schrieb Philipp Marek:\n> Say that \"123458\" is a commit with \"branch1\" associated; then I'd hope for output like\n> \n>     pick 123456 ...\n>     pick 123457 ...\n>     pick 123458 ...\n>     #x git branch \"branch1\" --force # move the branch?\n>     pick 123459 ...\n>     pick 12345a ...\n> \n> I have a few feature branches that are stacked upon each other; when moving a commit\n> \"down\" to the release-branch I'd like to have the other branches at the matching \"new\"\n> commit.\n> \n> Of course I can simply fix up the \"rebase\" output in my editor - but I guess that might\n> help a few people, that's why I'm proposing it here.\n\nI happen to have one such topic branch stack myself that I carry around\nsince a while. But the implementation must be a bit smarter: What should\nhappen if you --abort after e.g. 123459 was picked?\n\nI used this scheme sometimes:\n\n     pick 123456 ...\n     pick 123457 ...\n     pick 123458 ...\n     x git rev-parse HEAD >sha1\n     pick 123459 ...\n     pick 12345a ...\n     x git branch --force \"branch1\" $(cat sha1)\n\nGranted, an indication where the topic branch heads would have to go in\nthe todo list, as you suggest, would be nice first step.\n\n-- Hannes\n"}]}