From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:55:31 GMT
Subject: Re: n-heads and patch dependency chains
Message-ID: <7v4q0oyt3w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <1145556505.5314.149.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com>

Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 06:47, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>
>> No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the 
>> result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged 
>> in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The 
>> resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was 
>> committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the 
>> testing-branch.

To be consistent, I think the result should be "as if the change
was commited only to the topic-branch and then the topic-branch
was *merged* into the testing-branch", since you start your
testing branch as "being the result of several merged topic-branches".

I do that (manually) all the time, with:

	$ git checkout next
        $ hack hack hack

        $ git checkout -m one/topic
        $ git commit -o this-path that-path
        $ git checkout next
        $ git pull . one/topic

Giving a short-hand for the last four-command sequence would
certainly be nice.

> I am your number one fan!  If I finish reading these 600+
> messages, will I find out you have already implemented it,
> it's committed, and you just need me to test it now? :-)

Likewise... ;-)