From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:46 AM
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sound a reasonable idea. On some patches I was working on I had to
[chose
to] add a tag for the base which made it easier to rebase later.
And was the 'upstream' branch somehow not appropriate for some reason?
If I remember correctly, I had a short branch based on 'pu', which was
rewound, so I wanted to rebase that short branch onto the new 'pu'. This
creates a confusion between old-pu and new-pu. Having a marker for the
'base' at the branch point allowed an easy specification of the branch
I think I misunderstood your proposal. I thought that it would
effectively save a marker (e.g. the sha1) for the base point of the
branch, it may have been something similar to a [lightweight] tag, it
could have been just local or could have been transferable, I hadn't
thought it further.
Philip
--
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