Re: Dealing with an upstream cherry-picked branch
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 16, 2010, 22:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vy6hrzxhu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <76718491003161038u3dc567a7pb0ae558fd3b6b9c9@mail.gmail.com>
Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes:
> I think I'm not clear how it helps to make the integration branch > throw-away. Unless you mean something like git pu?
The whole idea of making it throw-away came from that you do not have control over your upstream and you would want to work with their upstream-master and "upstream-a of the week".
I think your squinted version essentially is the same as what I outlined, modulo that your "local-master" corresponds to what I called "local-base". No matter what we call that branch, as long as you need to be able to integrate cleanly with both upstream-master and the upstream-a (that is built by cherry-picking and then thrown away from time to time) and able to move forward without too much cruft in your history, "local-base" needs to stay away from merging upstream-a.