From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:28:50 GMT Subject: Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains Message-ID: <44323C52.2030803@op5.se> In-Reply-To: <4431B60E.3030008@vilain.net> Sam Vilain wrote: > 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 for committing to another branch and -B 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