also sprach Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011.08.03.0125 +0200]: > Not each feature branch may end up in master. And there does not need > to be one feature branch which depends on all other features. For the > latter you have probably an empty feature branch which just depends on > all features. I call this branch mostly 'tip'. Removing a feature > branch from the tips dependency list only with merges can't be done > right now, and the proposed solutions never reached a usable state. > > My second usecase is to convert a big quilt patch series into TopGit. > Such big Quilt patches have mostly an artificial dependency to its > predecessors. Removing these artifical dependencies makes it necessary > to remove dependencies from patches. Dear Bert, thank you for your reply. Okay, understood. Yes, I agree entirely, the set of dependencies needs to be mutable. And they must not be invalidated by branch renames. Therefore, we really need some sort of other way to identify branches. Is there a way other than lamenting that refs did not get UUIDs assigned to them from the early days onwards? ;) -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "if one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all." -- oscar wilde spamtraps: madduck.bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)