Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Apr 4, 2006, 09:28 UTC
Message-ID: <44323C52.2030803@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <4431B60E.3030008@vilain.net>

Sam Vilain wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>>For example, the point jdl raised during the discussion is far
>>easier to understand.  When working on multiple topics, he often
>>needs to test them as a whole, so he pulls them into a test
>>branch (can be a throwaway branch).  When he needs to do fixups,
>>it is most efficient to do compile/run test while still in the
>>test branch, but after things test out, in order to keep
>>logically different things separate, he needs to go back to
>>relevant topic branches and make a commit.  This is painful --
>>are there ways to make this easier [*2*]?
>>
>>Would patch commutation calculus help with his problem?
>> 
>>
> 
> 
> I'd provisionally say "yes, that's the fit". It's just like having
> multiple topic branches all checked out at once, with commits going to
> the appropriate branch as necessary.
>

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 <branch> for committing to another branch and -B <branch> for doing the above probably makes more sense.

Those flags don't exist currently btw, in case someone's reading this on the archives.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231