Hi Yury, >> I'm not sure what you mean. On what occasion does Git throw away history? > > Michael means that git has no "branch" concept, only "branch head" > concept.
I'm not sure whether I follow. Given a branch head, the corresponding "branch" is the sequence of ancestors from that head. Where is the problem? And how is Git supposed to be different in that regard from other DCVS, like monotone? > Suppose that you have two branches, "master" and "stdenv". As usual, > you merge master->stdenv every day or two and you merge > stdenv->master every month or two. Then it is not possible to search > for commits that first appeared in stdenv. Actually, that is no problem at all. I use that exact setup every day to maintain the various ~/dot.something files for my home directories on different machines. There are plenty of ways to accomplish what you describe. Simply run "git cherry -v stdenv master"; that will give you the desired information with fairly high accuracy. An alternative and arguably superior solution is to run: git rebase master stdenv Then you'll have a stdenv branch that consists of exactly those patches that are unique to stdenv. Last but not least, there are at least two different front-ends to Git that accomplish the same thing in an even more sophisticated fashion. Anyway, I don't see how any of this equates to "Git throws away history". That sounds like an exaggeration, at best. Take care, Peter _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
