From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:35:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] New kind of upstream branch: base branch
Message-ID: <D6098E29305740EE916958521A797AB9@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s13Q6DMX+QNteqO8D-J7bDcNyp7OkRVqj6B1Qhp0OSB+Q@mail.gmail.com>

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

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.

Philip