Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the
- public "pu" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
+ public "seen" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
the "master" branch, and how "rebase" works. Also discussed
is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches
upstream.
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>>
->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
->> > branch to the real branches.
+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your
+>> > "seen" branch to the real branches.
>>
> Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
--------------------------------------
I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
Git tools.
-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I
wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit
+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit
ancestry graph looked like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
\
\---> master
The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
The new master commit holds my documentation updates.
-Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.
+Now I have to deal with "seen" branch.
This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
-at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
+at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "seen"
branch being the "contributor" branch. Your work started at the
tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
other commits you do not have yet. And "git rebase" was written
with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
-"pu". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
+"seen". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you
eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
-your changes) "pu" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
+your changes) "seen" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
- $ git checkout pu
- $ git rebase master pu
+ $ git checkout seen
+ $ git rebase master seen
What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
-branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
+branch (note that I now am on "seen" branch) forked from the
master branch, and forward port these changes.
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
- \ *"pu" head
+ \ *"seen" head
\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'
The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "pu", you
+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "seen", you
can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.
While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
projects / thirdparty / git.git / blobdiff