On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Sitaram Chamarty <[email protected]> wrote: > your workarounds are possibly too complex. You might want to use "git > revert" instead, which would cover case 3 also.
So in other words, in my Release branch, I would put the change that is not to be propagated into a commit of its own. This change could be the addition or deletion of a file, or a patch to a file. Then I would merge this change (alone) into the master, then run "git revert". Since "git revert" does a new commit after the reversion, the Release changes would not be propagated into the master even in future merges. Is this correct? (Especially the last sentence?) Thanks, -P. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GitHub" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/github?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
