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@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html