Re: [RFC] New kind of upstream branch: base branch

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 17, 2013, 00:07 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3UjDUWb_ng5NhLB2tMV0gqsRx_Ob=vj3P5RVfigD1r7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6098E29305740EE916958521A797AB9@PhilipOakley>

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:46 AM
>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sound a reasonable idea. On some patches I was working on I had to [chose
>>> to] add a tag for the base which made it easier to rebase later.
>>
>>
>> And was the 'upstream' branch somehow not appropriate for some reason?
>
>
> If I remember correctly, I had a short branch based on 'pu', which was
> rewound, so I wanted to rebase that short branch onto the new 'pu'. This
> creates a confusion between old-pu and new-pu. Having a marker for the
> 'base' at the branch point allowed an easy specification of the branch

So you were not doing 'git rebase @{base}', you were doing 'git rebase --onto X @{base}'?

> I think I misunderstood your proposal. I thought that it would effectively
> save a marker (e.g. the sha1) for the base point of the branch, it may have
> been something similar to a [lightweight] tag, it could have been just local
> or could have been transferable, I hadn't thought it further.

Yeah, I thought about that, and I think it might make sense, but that's another topic.

-- 
Felipe Contreras