On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 13:14, Stephen Bash <bash@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Seth Robertson" <in-gitvger@xxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Artur Skawina" <art.08.09@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Stefan Haller" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:26:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: Find out on which branch a commit was originally made) (was ANNOUNCE git-what-branch)
>>
>> ... I wanted something completely different. Something more
>> like: if a bug was introduced in commit X, what releases or branches
>> has it contaminated (or more positively, if a feature was introduced,
>> where was it made available). The simple case is figuring out on
>> which branch a commit was originally made.
> Wait... When you restate the problem that way, isn't
> git-{branch,tag} --contains the right answer? ÂI'm curious how you
> (and others) would differentiate the approaches...
git-{branch,tag} *is* the right answer, the problem here was that the
original reporter wanted to *delete* the original branch, or otherwise
not make it available, but still find out what it was.
The workaround is to walk the tree from a merge commit, but I think a
better solution is to just push the refs to your topic branches
somewhere and keep them in an archive/ namespace. Then if you need to
go digging you can always add the archive as a remote and go
git-{branch,tag} --contains.
--
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