Hi, On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > And you could certainly do the "passed testing" thing with commits in > > a separate branch instead: you'd create the "testing" branch, which is > > always a set of commits that have as their primary parent the commit > > that got tested, and as the second parent the previous commit in the > > "testing" series). > > I personally feel that that kind of commit is misusing the parent field > (for one thing, it would not play well with merges at all, although > people who abuse commits to record non-ancestry structure may not even > be interested in merging such things so it may not be a problem in > practice). I don't think it is misusing the parent field, but I would make the primary parent the ancestor in terms of testing. In a very real sense, this maps the history -- not of development, but of testing. It also makes sense to bisect on this line of history. The chance of a mismerge is somewhat real, though. At first I thought that you'd need a special script anyway, until I realized that it's just a matter of "git merge -s theirs <from-devel>". Ciao, Dscho - 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