On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 20:15, Colomban Wendling <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 09/10/2011 19:03, Jiří Techet a écrit : >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 17:59, Colomban Wendling >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Le 09/10/2011 16:49, Jiří Techet a écrit : >>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 15:38, Colomban Wendling >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Le 09/10/2011 14:36, Jiří Techet a écrit : >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 13:55, Colomban Wendling >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> * 03c3b75 (r3679) is a bit weird too, it has d3cdd27 (r3680) as parent, >>>>>>> but as the SVN revision suggests, d3cdd27 is newer than it (13:53:04 vs >>>>>>> 13:45:47). And I don't see from SVN log why this would be wanted. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is apparently my error - judging from the date I should have used >>>>>> d71d352 for "merge trunk changes". I'll fix that. >>>>> >>>>> Great, looking forward to it. I think when this is done all is OK, so >>>>> we could import it in the official repo :) >>>> >>>> OK, I've re-uploaded the repositories to the same locations. I've >>>> fixed the incorrect merge issue and updated parents for most of the >>>> re-created branches. >>> >>> Yep, looks great, bravo! >>> >>>> The only one I haven't updated is the "Create branch for configurable >>>> build menu development", now commit 80d2802. There's something strange >>>> - it appears the branch existed before but it was never merged into >>>> trunk. Instead it was probably deleted and re-created again. If I >>>> updated the parent to be the trunk only, we'd lose the history of this >>>> branch because we couldn't get to the previous commits in any way. So >>>> I think it's better to keep it the way it is. >>> >>> OK, makes sense, even though the old build-system branch was dropped >>> because it was "corrupted" (according to r3939: "Removing corrupted >>> branch"). >> >> Ah, OK, I've overlooked this. If you want to make some more changes, >> create a file called "grafts" inside .git/info. Each line of this file >> has format >> >> parent child1 child2 child3... (using commit SHAs depending on number >> of children) > > Isn't it rather child parent1 parent2...? Looks like it does a better > job, if I understand the result correctly ^^ anyway, thanks for the tips :)
Correct. I used sequence writing thinking1 thinking2 thinking3 instead of thinking writing1 writing2 writing3 which explains the result :-). > > Anyway I chosen to keep the previous branch as you did it so there is > some more history, yet it is strange. Agree, it's hard to say what the right way is in this case anyway. Cheers, Jiri _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
