On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.s...@viscovery.net> wrote:
> 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?
Take kernel development for example, sub-maintainers not always keep
a patchset in a single branch, instead, there could be a mix of patchset
and single fixing patches on a same branch:
When we identify a specific patch, e.g. E3, is it possible to figure out
the whole patchset of E<n>?
> -- Hannes
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