On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, <gree...@obbligato.org> wrote:
> James Nylen <jny...@gmail.com> writes:
>> - add "fancylib" as a subtree of "myprog"
>> - commit to "myprog" repo: "fancylib: don't crash as much"
>> - split these commits back out to "fancylib" main repo, and remove
>> the "fancylib: " prefix
> Should this really be a function of git-subtree? It seems like it would
> fit better in a history-rewriting command. Wouldn't rebase -i or even
> filter-branch be a better way to do this?
I'm not a git guru by any stretch, so I'm sure there are other ways to
accommodate the example use case above. I really just want to be able
to split and merge repositories while keeping meaningful commit
messages with an appropriate level of detail. Can you suggest an
> If there's no --annotate I don't see why git-subtree should have the
> --unannotate functionality.
Because they are not inverse operations - they both apply to `git
subtree split`. I think that `--annotate` would only be useful as an
option to `git subtree merge`. In that case it would be the inverse
operation of `git subtree split --unannotate`, and then I would agree
that if you remove one, you can/should remove the other.
> Again, I agree that your example is relevant, maybe even common, but I
> don't necessarily think git-subtree should be in the business of
> rewriting commit messages at all.
I'm willing to accept that. Junio seemed to be leaning that way too
in earlier emails.
> I'd appreciate more thoughts from you on this. I want to make sure we
> can support your use case.
I currently need to enable `git subtree` manually anyway, since it's
not part of the main distribution. So it's not a burden for me to
support this feature with a customized script, or learn a new way to
Thanks for your consideration of this small and nit-picky issue.
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