On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:49:13AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Can you say more about the context?  Why is it important to record the
> original commit id?  Is it a matter of keeping a reminder of the
> commits' similarity (which cherry-pick without '-x' does ok by reusing
> the same message) or are people reviewing the change downstream going
> to be judging the change based on the recorded upstream commit id?
> (Like linux's stable-<version> branches --- but those have other
> requirements so I don't think this configuration would work as is
> there.)

I can provide a use case.  At work, we merge into the maintenance and
development branches and cherry-pick from the maintenance to the stable
branches.  We want committers to always use -x -s because we need to
know which reviewer backported the change and we want to be able to
track which commits have been backported and whether any reverts also
need to be cherry-picked.  We also have automated tools that want this

I usually solve this with an alias (backport = cherry-pick -x -s), but I
can see how this might be a useful option.

brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to