From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:54:28 GMT
Subject: Re: "Branch objects" (was: Re: cherry picking and merge)
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:
> 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
--