Re: "Branch objects" (was: Re: cherry picking and merge)
- From
- Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date
- Aug 7, 2014, 22:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAK3OfOiEMm3FiP_1Ho12pvccsyWvC13BRJH+FpMRTNObM3j0iw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LSU.2.00.1408071829470.13901@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: >> Either way I retain the old HEAD with some name. > > Hmm, yes, I can see that would work. However my previous workflow was > rather branch-heavy and I found the accumulation of names annoying. I have > not yet had enough usage out of git-repub to see if it goes too far in the > direction of lack-of-names. A big omission is no opportunity to edit its > commit messages.
Oh, I just read your script more carefully and looked at your example history again. You're using parent metadata in the commits to keep the history alive without the extra names, correct? *That* is _clever_. Hats off. I may have to steal this script :)
Nico --