On 04/11/11 16:15, Stephan Beal wrote: > Hi, all, > > Last weekend i finally found the opportunity to use the --cherrypick option > of the "merge" command (and it saved me a lot of tedious effort in the form > of manual merges). i notice that the timeline does not appear to track such > merges. Is there a way to see such merges after the fact? Since i couldn't > find one, i started adding the cherrypicked IDs to my commit messages (thank > goodness i can edit them after the fact), but i'm curious if i just > overlooked something.
It would be nice to record this, yeah - merge --cherrypick seems to just apply the "diffs" of a particular merge to the working copy (and add any new files as ADDED_BY_MERGE, it seems). I've just done an experiment, doing three commits that add new files on a branch, cherry-picking the middle of the three back to the trunk (with a commit message saying so), then merging the trunk into the branch - it worked, but complained that there was no common ancestor for the file added in the cherry-picked commit. I didn't have time to try it with actual content that gets merged, but I'm hoping the system realises it's got some changes already present due to cherry-picking and doesn't explode about conflicts if so... ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
