Hello Sitaram, [mmh, your mail didn't have me in the addressees, wonder why.] On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:52:54AM +0000, Sitaram Chamarty wrote: > On 2009-04-28, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:41:38AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > >> also sprach Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@xxxxxxxxx> [2009.04.28.1049 +0200]: > >> [...] > >> > I know "tg depend" only has the "add" subcommand right now, > >> > but is there a manual way of getting the effect of a > >> > hypothetical "tg depend remove"? > >> > >> No, not yet, see http://bugs.debian.org/505303 for further > >> discussion on the issue. > > But note that you might get some problems after doing that. See > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/116193/focus=116205 > > Hello Uwe, > > This is a little beyond my comprehension :( However, this > is also why I am limiting myself to > > - a single level of dependencies in tg, (master --> > multiple t/something --> t/all), and > > - no changes of its own in t/all > > When any of the t/something graduates to master, t/all will > be blown away (safe, since it has no changes of its own) and What makes you think it will "be blown away"? Or alternatively, what do you mean saying that? I often use the same approach and I never had the feeling anything is blown away. If upstream uses your t/something patch it just merges into t/something making it empty without changing the corresponding tree (assuming master contains no other changes). Then when t/something is merged into t/all nothing happens, because t/something's tree didn't change. So the only thing is that t/all depends on an empty tg-branch. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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