Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
> > ...
> > Which will generate the integration instructions for you:
> >
> >   % git reintegrate --cat
> >   base master
> >   merge jl/submodule-mv
> >
> >     Moving a regular file in a repository with a .gitmodules file was
> >     producing a warning 'Could not find section in .gitmodules where
> >     path=<filename>'.
> >
> >   merge ap/remote-hg-unquote-cquote
> >
> > It also has support for "evil merges", so it should be perfectly
> > usable for git.git maintenance.
> Yeah, it sounds like it is almost there.
> I think the infrastructure to maintain "What's cooking" could be
> updated to use these comments after "merge" instructions if I wanted
> to.
> I build two branches on top of 'master', one is called 'jch' and has
> a marker line somewhere that says '### match next' that is turned
> into an empty commit, and 'pu' that is built on top of the tip of
> 'jch'.  The marker line is used to apply only an earlier part of the
> instruction stream to build 'jch' on top of 'master' on top of
> 'next' (i.e. "base master" in the above example will not be applied
> to hard-reset 'next' to match master) and stop there, and is meant
> to be a way to sanity check 'next' (which is made by repeated
> incremental merges on top of 'master' without rewinding) by
> comparing the "### match next" commit between 'master' and 'jch'
> (which is made afresh from 'master' by taking only the necessary
> topics).  They must match or I caught a possible mismerge on 'next'.
> I presume that the workflow can be mimicked by having another branch
> 'match-next' and building it on top of 'master', and then building
> 'jch' on top of it, and then building 'pu' on top of it.  Then you
> should be able to play 'match-next' instruction on top of 'next'
> (provided that there is a way to tell it to replay on HEAD and
> ignore "base" and have "merge" instruction become a no-op when the
> branch has already been merged)

Or have an option to specify a dynamic instruction sheet, so you can cat
the instructions of 'match-next' and replace the base. However, I don't
see the point of re-applying the branches for 'next' if you already know
that 'next' and 'match-next' are the same.

I would have two branches: 1) 'match-next' (or 'integration-next') that
has the instructions to build 'next' on top of 'master', and 2) 'pu',
which has the instructions to build 'pu' on top of 'next'.

Felipe Contreras
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

Reply via email to