Re: [RFC] Applying a graft to a tree and "rippling" the changes through
- From
Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de>
- Date
- Nov 21, 2005, 02:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20051121022428.GB7902@kiste.smurf.noris.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511210041370.24681@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Hi,
Johannes Schindelin:
Show 17 quoted lines
> > > ORIG1 .. ORIG2 .. .. ORIG_HEAD > > > | > > > | GIT1 .. GIT2 .. .. GIT_HEAD > > > | / / > > > | / / > > > UNIFYING_MERGE / > > > \ / > > > \ / > > > NEW_HEAD_FOR_ARCHEOLOGICAL_PURPOSES > > > > > Note: it's not only about research (ie. something that would be static > > for browsing only), it's also about using the results of the research > > in further developement. > > Then you could base your future development on > NEW_HEAD_FOR_ARCHEOLOGICAL_PURPOSES. >
If you need a new HEAD *anyway*, then re-basing your trees would IMHO be a better solution.
ORIG1 .. ORIG2 .. .. ORIG_HEAD
|
| GIT1 .. GIT2 .. .. GIT_HEAD
| // // // \
| // // // TAG
NEWGIT1 .. GIT2 .. .. NEW_HEAD
\
NEW_TAGThose // links might be real parent pointers, which allows you to keep your old tags -- or not, which allows you to have a sane history. The good part is that you can do this incrementally, so you won't need a flag day.
I seriously doubt that all of this is worth the effort, given that you can do the same thing with a graft line... and most people could care less whether their histor starts at 2.6.11-whatever, 2.4, or 0.11. (*Has* anybody imported the old tarballs into git, by the way?)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@smurf.noris.de
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
lately waking up i'm not sure where i've been
-- Indigo Girls, "Language or the Kiss"