On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > You could potentially add a config option to put the branch name inside > > the '[PATCH]' text. This text is generally stripped away before > > applying, so it would still free up the receiver to apply on whatever > > branch they wanted. I don't think it would make sense for git > > development, since we typically use topic branches, so keeping it > > configurable would make sense. > > People would work on individual patches on topic branches that are named > differently from the branch on the other end anyway (the branch that > corresonds to the other end will be used for local integration testing in > such a setup), so I do not see much point in stating which local branch > happened to have been checked out when the patch was generated, in the > output. I think that is totally dependent on the workflow, which is what I was trying to say above. It really depends on how the patch-submitter organizes his branches. > the project's convention what to do with it. The side branch the patch > was developed on may be named "quick-hack", which would not have any > relevance to the final location of where that patch wants to be in. I suspect you would do better to look at branch.quick-hack.merge, so that you say "this was based on upstream's X", not "this is my quick-hack". But there are so many ways this could go wrong, since the patches you're formatting might not even have anything to do with the branch you're on. -Peff -- 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
