On Sun, Sep 07 2014, Brian May wrote:
> In another email by Manoj Srivastava:
>
>> That is really a matter of displaying history. The diagram
> displays Git history, not the patches; when B21 is committed, > there is no
> patch representing B12, however, that commit is still in <top>/.git/objects
> since it is a parent of the Node D3. This > is relevant when I am trying to
> trying to bisect and understand history. git-debcherry has fewer commits
> being carried around, > which makes it easier on my aging brain.
> Sorry, I think you have this wrong. (also nitpick: B12 is a parent of D5,
> not D3).
I aplogize, I I have not conveyed what is happening correctly,
and you are confused by my diagrams. I shall try to do better.
> When you commit B21, you have to replace B12 in the git history (e.g. git
> commit --amend). Otherwise, when the patches are exported, you will get
> both B12 and B21 appearing as separate patches debian/patches in D6. dpm
> has no way of knowing that B12 and B21 are part of the same patch and
> should be merged.
That is the outcome I want.
I commit B1, and later, B2. git-dpm creates ephemeral branches,
| I commit | Ephemeral gbranch contains | Master contains |
|----------+----------------------------+-----------------|
| A1 | A10 | D2 |
| B1 | A10, B11 | D3 |
| U2 | A11. B12 | D5 |
At this point B11 ans A10 are gone, apart from living in .git/objects.
| I commit | Ephemeral gbranch contains | Master contains |
|----------+----------------------------+-----------------|
| B2 | A11, B12, B21 | D6 |
There are there nodes in the ephemeral branch, and three patches
are produced -- Corresponding to A1, B1, and B2.
| I commit | Ephemeral gbranch contains | Master contains |
|----------+----------------------------+-----------------|
| A2 | A11, A21, B13, B22 | D7 |
Four commits on the feature branches, and the ephemeral branch
contains 4 commits -- the older ephemeral branches continue to live in
.git/objects, which bothers the purist in me,
> Maybe your point that debcherry is better still stands - it appears to work
> better with your concept of "feature branches", however I find it hard to
> use your document to compare the two when it contains errors like this.
I think the errors lie in documentation of what the diagram is
and thus the incorrect interpretation, rather than the underlying
analysis. I'll try do document better what the diagrams mean. Has this
helped you understand what the document is trying to say?
manoj
--
The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their
money. Ed Bluestone
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature