Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ... and
> sometimes think that in a A--B--C--D and in fact, I'd prefer to have:
>
> {A,C}--B--D. how is it possible to do that in a not too cumbersome
> way? because that would make sens to work in some scratch branch, and
> then reorganize patches in a saner better way in the master branch.
>
> But I fail to see how to achieve that without using cumbersome
> export-to-patch then git apply patch and edit logs which is painful and
> not really using git.
First of all, "format-patch and then edit" is a perfectly sane
way to use git. Any workflow that takes advantage of cheap
branch creatin and cheap resetting of the tip of a branch _is_
"really using git". It depends on the size of the series you
are redoing, but I do that all the time.
Also cherry-pick, rebase, squash merge are your friends.
If you are on $original branch (which may be your 'master') with
commits A--B--C--D:
git checkout -b temp HEAD~3 ;# that's A
git cherry-pick $original~1 ;# that's C
git checkout $original
git rebase temp
would make the $original A--C'-B'-D'. Then:
git checkout temp ; git reset --hard $original~4 ;# parent of A
git merge -s squash $original~2 ;# squash A and C'
would prepare you to make a squashed commit out of the two to
the temp branch. Then:
git checkout $original
git rebase --onto temp HEAD~2 ;# that's C'
git branch -d temp
would give you (A+C)--B'-D' on $original branch.
StGIT would make life even easier for you. It is designed to
make things like the above simpler.
-
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