Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> What happened was that I got confused by [1], where it reads:
>>
>> [...]
>> find the tip of js/branch-track-inherit from 'seen' [*]
>> [...]
>>
>> [Footnote]
>>
>> * One way to do so would be:
>>
>> $ git fetch
>> $ git show 'remote/origin/seen^{/^Merge branch .js/branch-track-inherit.}'
>>
>> The commit that I got was the "merge of js/branch-track-inherit into
>> 'seen'", but what you intended was the "merge of js/branch-track-inherit
>> into gc/branch-recurse-submodules"; I didn't realize that there might
>> have been more than commit matching that regex.
>
> Yeah, that was not quite clearly written. The way it was showing
> was to find the tip of the other branch. The instruction was to
> prepare you (and others reading from the sidelines) for a case where
> your branch depends on somebody else's work that is *not* even in
> 'seen' (e.g. I may have an older version of 'seen' but there is a
> newer and clearly improved version on the list that is likely to
> replace). In such a case, you'd
>
> (1) "find" the tip of the other branch, either by traversing from
> the tip of 'seen' to find the merge and taking its second
> parent, or applying the latest from the list to a locally
> created topic branch forked off of 'main',
>
> (2) create your topic branch, forked off of 'main', and merge (1)
> into it, and
>
> (3) build your series on it.
>
> If I have your previous round, and if the other topic you depend on
> hasn't changed, you can omit (2) and instead find the equivalent of
> (2) I created for your topic the last time I queued it.
>
>> I made some commit message changes. Unless you think it's a good idea, I
>> won't re-roll this to fix the issue.
>
> Let's not waste your message changes to clarify the patches.
>
>> So if my branch were not in 'seen', I should have based my changes on
>> 'origin/js/branch-track-inherit'. If my branch is in 'seen', I should
>> base it off the merge of js/branch-track-inherit' into my my branch?
>
> Hopefully the above is clear now? Sorry for the trouble.
>
> Thanks.
It's no trouble for me. I should be thanking you for taking the time to
make it clear :) I really appreciate it.
