skillzero@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
future o-o-o-o-o-o-o
\ \ \
1.2 o-o-o \
\ \
1.1 o-o-o \
\
feature o-o-o
a b c
Is cherry-picking the best way? It seems pretty tedious because I have
to do each commit in reverse order (although I could script it). I was
hoping there was a way to say "apply all the changes from when
"feature" branched up to its tip". I would also like to preserve the
commit history rather than just making making one big commit of all
the changes.
I think any other command that "just" moves those deltas would be the exact equivalent of
cherry picking in terms of the conflicts it sees.
You can, however, collapse a,b,c into one commit and pick that into each place it is
needed, calling it a good comment for the whole feature. That might be more difficult to
merge than doing one at a time, but if not, and the whole string is tedious (i.e. 50
instead of 3, mostly incremental typo fixes and stuff) I can see the benefit of making it
a gestalt.
Furthermore... (thinking out loud)... the conflicts are caused by things after the other
branches, right? After you do the resolving for (say) 1.2, then instead of picking a,b,c
again (with the same merge issues), pick the one you put onto 1.2 already. Work your way
that way from branches that came off nearest to the original feature, back down toward the
root. Each time pick the one you just planted, because it already contains merges part
way down. Then you only have to deal with the changes between those two branches.
So that's what I'd do: pick a, b, and c onto the most recient other branch (1.2 in your
drawing), fixing merge as I go. Then reset mixed back to the original tip before the
picks, and commit everything with a good name for the feature. Then, pick that onto the
next newest branch (1,1 in your drawing), etc.
--John
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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