From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:22:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] git commit --branch
Message-ID: <1149531734.23938.22.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vd5dvyvkq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 17:52, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org> writes:
> 
> >> And your approach is to backport the fix to its original topic
> >> and then re-pull the topic onto the test branch.
> >
> > yes. I was doing this after working on gitweb a bit.
> > In order to test gitweb, I need some local adaptations.
> 
> Funny you mention this.  I had exactly the same arrangement for
> hacking on gitweb.  One "localconf" branch to tell it where the
> repositories are, "origin" to track upstream, "master" to use
> for deployment, and other topic branches.

We all do. :-)

BTW, did you (anyone?) see my patch to help the local
configuration issue some?  It basically separates out the
config bits into a separate hash table in a separate file that
can be updated quite independently without even modifying
the original gitweb.cgi.  That allows the gitweb.cgi 
proper to be slammed down and updated much more readily.

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=114308224922372&w=2

jdl