Jakub Narebski wrote: > Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > >>Wouldn't "git commit -M -b topic", for committing to a different branch >>than what is checked out (-b) and also to the checked out branch (-M) >>have the same beneficial effects, but without the complexity of hydras >>and patch dependency theory? It would only remove the cherry-pick stage >>though, but perhaps it's good enough. Although when I think about it, -b >><branch> for committing to another branch and -B <branch> for doing the >>above probably makes more sense. > > > Do you mean that you commit current state to the checked out (working) > branch, and commit *changes* (i.e. apply patch) to a different branch? > No, I mean that this would commit both to the testing branch (being the result of several merged topic-branches) and to the topic-branch merged in. Commit as in regular commit, with a commit-message and a patch. The resulting repository would be the exact same as if the change was committed only to the topic-branch and then cherry-picked on to the testing-branch. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Tue Apr 04 21:48:27 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-04-04 21:48:43 EST