Re: Support for a series of patches, i.e. patchset or changeset?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yeah, that's a very clean way I'd always want to follow, yet the
kernel upstream isn't doing so.

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Enrico Weigelt <enrico.weigelt@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> yet another idea:
>
> you coud always put your patchsets into separate branches,
> rebase them ontop target branch before merging, and then
> do an non-ff-merge, which will make the history look like:
>
> * merged origin/feature_foo
> |\
> | * first preparation fo feature foo
> | * part a
> | * part b
> |/
> * merged origin/bugfix_blah
> |\
> | * fixing bug blah
> |/
> *
>
>
> cu
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>
> Enrico Weigelt
> VNC - Virtual Network Consult GmbH
> Head Of Development
>
> Pariser Platz 4a, D-10117 Berlin
> Tel.: +49 (30) 3464615-20
> Fax: +49 (30) 3464615-59
>
> enrico.weigelt@xxxxxxx; www.vnc.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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]