Re: Including branch info in git format-patch

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2008, 21:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20080619210617.GC6529@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> > You could potentially add a config option to put the branch name inside
> > the '[PATCH]' text. This text is generally stripped away before
> > applying, so it would still free up the receiver to apply on whatever
> > branch they wanted. I don't think it would make sense for git
> > development, since we typically use topic branches, so keeping it
> > configurable would make sense.
> 
> People would work on individual patches on topic branches that are named
> differently from the branch on the other end anyway (the branch that
> corresonds to the other end will be used for local integration testing in
> such a setup), so I do not see much point in stating which local branch
> happened to have been checked out when the patch was generated, in the
> output.

I think that is totally dependent on the workflow, which is what I was trying to say above. It really depends on how the patch-submitter organizes his branches.

> the project's convention what to do with it.  The side branch the patch
> was developed on may be named "quick-hack", which would not have any
> relevance to the final location of where that patch wants to be in.

I suspect you would do better to look at branch.quick-hack.merge, so that you say "this was based on upstream's X", not "this is my quick-hack".

But there are so many ways this could go wrong, since the patches you're formatting might not even have anything to do with the branch you're on.

-Peff