Am 11/6/2012 7:56, schrieb Eric Miao:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.s...@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> Am 11/6/2012 1:58, schrieb Eric Miao:
>>> E.g. when we merged a series of patches:
>>> [PATCH 00/08]
>>> [PATCH 01/08]
>>> [PATCH 08/08]
>>> How do we know this whole series after merged when only one of these
>>> commits are known?
>> You can use git name-rev. For example:
>> $ git name-rev 9284bdae3
>> 9284bdae3 remotes/origin/pu~2^2~7
>> This tell you that the series was merged two commits before origin/pu, and
>> then it is the 7th from the tip of the series. Now you can
>> $ git log origin/pu~2^..origin/pu~2^2
>> to see the whole series.
> I'm just curious how this is implemented in git, are we keeping the info
> of the series that's applied in a whole?
If the maintainer did his job well, then everything that you had in [PATCH
01/08] ... [PATCH 08/08] is in the commits of the series, and [PATCH
00/08] (the cover letter) is in the commit that merged the series.
Anything else that I didn't mention but you consider as "the info of the
> But this still looks like be inferred basing on a branch head, and I'm
> afraid this may not be applicable in every case.
What's the problem? That it's inferred? Or that it needs a branch head?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html