| From: | Elvis Pranskevichus <el(at)prans(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited |
| Date: | 2010-09-22 05:50:07 |
| Message-ID: | 201009220150.08005.el@prans.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On September 21, 2010 11:47:30 pm Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > However, keep in mind that creating a branch in every existing backpatch
> > branch is going to create even more backpatching monkey-work.
>
> Monkey-work is scriptable though. It'll all be worth it if git
> cherry-pick is even marginally smarter about back-merging the actual
> patches. In principle it could be less easily confused than plain
> old patch, but I was a bit discouraged by the upthread comment that
> it's just a shorthand for "git diff | patch" :-(
>
> regards, tom lane
cherry-pick is NOT just a shorthand for git diff | patch. It is a single-
commit merge tool. man page does not indicate that, but you can supply the
merge strategy parameter, just like you would do with git merge, but AFAIR
it's not necessary and cherry-pick will fallback to the default recursive
merge when needed.
Elvis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-09-22 06:24:55 | Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-22 05:38:57 | Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited |