Re: Including branch info in git format-patch

From: Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2008, 21:15 UTC
Message-ID: <bd6139dc0806191415r64755ef3p90cecba7a074d9bc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vskv9rvrc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> You could potentially add a config option to put the branch name inside
>> the '[PATCH]' text. This text is generally stripped away before
>> applying, so it would still free up the receiver to apply on whatever
>> branch they wanted. I don't think it would make sense for git
>> development, since we typically use topic branches, so keeping it
>> configurable would make sense.
>
> People would work on individual patches on topic branches that are named
> differently from the branch on the other end anyway (the branch that
> corresonds to the other end will be used for local integration testing in
> such a setup), so I do not see much point in stating which local branch
> happened to have been checked out when the patch was generated, in the
> output.

I think what Mukund is asking for is a way to specify what upstream branch the commit should be applied to. This would be a feature to help the person who is going to do the applying, so it is ok if the person formatting the patch has to do a little work for that (e.g., specify which upstream branch to format-patch as a cmdline option)

> If you have a history of this shape:

<snip>

Show 5 quoted lines

> which "branch label" would you give to the format-patch output that shows
> commit A?  It may apply to both master and next, and it is really up to
> the project's convention what to do with it.  The side branch the patch
> was developed on may be named "quick-hack", which would not have any
> relevance to the final location of where that patch wants to be in.

You would give it the label of the branch you want it applied to!

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier