On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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 what Mukund is asking for is a way to specify what upstream branch the commit should be applied to. This would be a feature to help the person who is going to do the applying, so it is ok if the person formatting the patch has to do a little work for that (e.g., specify which upstream branch to format-patch as a cmdline option) > If you have a history of this shape: <snip> > which "branch label" would you give to the format-patch output that shows > commit A? It may apply to both master and next, and it is really up to > 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. You would give it the label of the branch you want it applied to! -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier -- 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
