Hi, On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Petr Baudis wrote: > > > Dear diary, on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:28:08PM CEST, I got a letter > > where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> said that... > > >> However, you can tell git that Jeff is being difficult by marking such > >> branches individually as being rebased. > > > > This is really a wrong way of describing the problem - I'd say that Git > > is being difficult here. The point is, the subsystem maintainers need to > > maintain stacks of patches and rebase against the main kernel branch > > regularily, and they want to still publish their current state. So it's > > not really any of them being strange or difficult, but Git being so > > because it has no seamless support for tracking those branches. > > There was idea around moving remotes configuration to config file to have > some per branch configureation, including readonly for protecting tracking > branches, marking default branch for merge with (and which tracking > branch(es) to merge)... If you want it, go ahead, propose something. > ...and that included marking branch _on the server side_ as being rebased, > i.e. without preserved history. Unfortunately, the discussion petered out > without changes to git. Not true. We have the [branch "StrangeCase Sensitive/Name"] syntax as a consequence. But I agree, nothing came out of the discussion about per-branch settings, maybe because nobody cared enough? Ciao, Dscho - 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