On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote: > On 2007-05-06 15:39:09 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: > > > Well, this case clearly falls in the category of "actions outside > > stgit that make it possible to rebase without a loss". But then it > > is also clear that the action of tagging makes the committed patch > > reachable, and thus the rebase loss-less. > > > > The safety check could be possibly be rewritten as "check if current > > base is reachable without using any refs from current series". > > Yes, I like that idea _much_ better. That's what we _should_ be > testing for, given that the objective is to keep all commits > reachable. > > So, how can we do that? gitk displays, when you view a commit, the > heads through which that commit is reachable. How does it compute > that? Hmm, it seems like this type of construct works for selecting > only those commits that are only reachable through a given ref: > > gitk origin/pu --not $(git show-ref | grep -v refs/remotes/origin/pu| cut -f 1 -d ' ') > > Of course, one could use git log instead of gitk if it turns out to be > too hard to write an x-windows parser for stgit. :-) Indeed, gitk calls git-rev-list with those arguments, so the check can be easily rewritten :) Best regards, -- Yann - 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
