(cc-ing Elijah Newren for the points about merging) Hi again, To avoid the other thread shadowing more important things: Michael Muré wrote: > Someone suggested in the Hacker News thread [0] to post it here as well. Thanks to Ævar for that. [...] > git-bug use as identifier the hash of the first commit in the chain > of commit of the bug. Clever! I like this approach to the naming problem. [...] > Git doesn't provide a low-level command to rebase a branch onto > another without touching the index. Thanks for pointing this out. There's been some recent work to make Git's merge code (also used for cherry-pick) less reliant on the index and worktree. See https://crbug.com/git/12 for some references. There's also been some heavy refactoring of "git rebase" code to be in C and be able to make use of library functions instead of being a shell script. That's all to say that we're in a pretty good place to consider introducing commands like git cherry-pick --onto=<branch> <revisions> In absence of that kind of thing, you can run commands that need to touch the index (but not the working tree) by setting the GIT_INDEX environment variable to point to a temporary index file. > I'd love to have some feedback from you. Contribution are also very > much welcomed. Can you say more about the federation model it intends to support? For example, do you imagine - having multiple copies of a git bugs repo that automatically fetch updates from each other - having explicit "pull request" synchronization moments when the owners of one copy of a bug tracker push or request a fetch of changes that have been happening on another - individual contributors using an offline copy of the bug tracker and pushing push/pull mostly to synchronize with a single centralized copy - something else? Thanks, Jonathan
