On wo, 2008-08-13 at 11:20 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi, > Interesting - I had imagined changing dependencies working in an > entirely different way. Thanks! This is quite interesting. A few questions > > $ git checkout -b P' P > $ git rebase --onto B' B .. is using rebase a robust solution? We should provide a way to recover after user intervention here? > $ git checkout P > $ git merge --no-ff --no-commit B' (*) Do you remember in what area the problem is here, that would make it a lot easier for me to look. > $ git read-tree -u P' Ouch, I'm feeling so git-unitiated here; what is read-tree doing differently from merge? Isn't here a -m missing? > The main problem I see with this story is that if B' is just B with some > new changes added this is overly complicated. Yes, that's my main gripe. One of the use cases I'm looking at is our ooo-build master branch; which includes ~300 topic branches. Removing or [re-]adding one dependency using this rebase-by-merging approch would take ~7 minutes on my machine. I'm now also looking at a .topundeps file, to support the re-adding of a depenency using the cherry-pick approach... Greetings, Janneke. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@xxxxxxx> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- 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
