[Numpy-discussion] 1.10-devel is open

[Charles R Harris]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Julian Taylor <jtaylor.debian at googlemail.com
> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Julian Taylor
> > <jtaylor.debian at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07.07.2014 07:53, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >> > Just so. The fixes for 1.9.0b1 are now in that branch ready for the
> next
> >> > beta.
> >> >
> >>
> >> how did you do that without a merge commit?
> >
> >
> >   git branch tmp maintenance/1.9.x
> >   git co tmp
> >   git branch -f maintenance/1.9.x d244ec7
> >   git rebase -p --onto tmp 10098da maintenance/1.9.x
> >
> >>
> >> however you did it you have git has lost ancestry which is not so nice
> >> for backporting.
> >
> >
> > Same changesets, I believe. If '-p' is omitted the merges are omitted.
> >
> >>
> >> If there are no objections I'd like to rewind the maintenance branch
> >> back to beta1 and merge master in properly.
> >
> >
> > I thought this somewhat cleaner than a merge :0
> >
>
> By rebasing or cherry-picking git loses the information that the
> changeset originates from another branch.
> So when you try to merge or cherrypick more changes from the branch
> the changes are coming from the automerging bails or is at least less
> useful.
> So if you are moving changes from one branch to another one should
> merge whenever possible.
>
> Now that both branches have diverged, 1.9 by the release commit, and
> 1.10 by the opening commit, there is no easy way for git to track the
> origins of a changeset and we have to do the usual cherry picking, as
> to my knowledge git does not have partial merges.
>

Yes, what I did was like one big cherry-pick. But I think we end up in the
same place with two divergent branches. I think git history is just a
string of changesets and each changeset has a hash. Same hash, same
changeset, and I think that was preserved, so in that sense history was
preserved. The 1.9.x branch pushed without trouble. Anyway, six of one,
half dozen of the other. I was going to do the merge route originally, even
did the merge.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140707/250a85e8/attachment.html>