Re: merging initial part of a branch?
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Jan 13, 2006, 04:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v8xtkhj5l.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20060113030837.GD27214@fieldses.org>
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> That's the only reference I can find to the "tag <tag>" notation, and > it's a bit unhelpful as written. (What backward compatibility?) > > How about the following?--b.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Backward compatibility is that it was only either "<branch>" or "tag <tag>". When heads/branch or tags/tag came later, supporting the separate word form "tag <tag>" was a bit cumbersome but was done for b/c.