2014-07-11 18:42 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Mark Polesky <markpole...@gmail.com> writes: > >> In response to http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3952#c7 >> >> David, here's a simplified version of the faulty workflow. >> The problem occurs in step 5 where I accidentally did >> `HEAD..bar' instead of `master..bar' (thinko). > >> 1) git log --graph --all --decorate --oneline | cat >> >> * a9af02f (bar) Finish fixing bar. >> * d3b60de Start fixing bar. >> | * 38e720f (foo) Fix foo. >> |/ >> * 9491de4 (HEAD, staging, master) HEAD of master branch. >> >> 2) git co staging >> 3) git cherry-pick foo >> 4) git log --graph --all --decorate --oneline | cat >> >> * c7b770d (HEAD, staging) Fix foo. >> | * a9af02f (bar) Finish fixing bar. >> | * d3b60de Start fixing bar. >> |/ >> | * 38e720f (foo) Fix foo. >> |/ >> * 9491de4 (master) HEAD of master branch. >> >> 5) git diff HEAD..bar > patch0.patch >> 6) git apply patch0.patch >> 7) git commit -am"Fix bar." > > No. No, no, no. _Never_ convert anything into a patch which you then > apply. You lose all context, and Git loses all context, patch authors, > patch dates etc. If you do "git reflog", you cannot reconstruct what > happened as the source of the basically anonymous patch is opaque.
Oh my. David's right - this workflow is completely un-gitish. Would you like a quick git coaching session? I should have half an hour tomorrow for a quick skype call, somewhere between 8 and 11UTC. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel