[LRUG] git question

[Taryn East]

2009/8/20 Murray Steele <murray.steele at gmail.com>

>
> 2009/8/20 Taryn East <teast at globalpersonals.co.uk>
>
>>
>> there seems to be another implied "key", in the above, that being that you
>> have to make patches as you go along (ie "make a patch from everything I've
>> done so far up until the current head (after rebasing)") - you don't seem to
>> be able to make a set of patches after this.
>> If this is the case - why? If not - how would you do that?
>>
>> Use case: you start work on a big feature - then you find out at alater
>> point that your feature is actually two smaller features, one of which is
>> acceptable and the other is debatable. So you need two patches.
>>
>
> What I'd do here is create 2 other branches (off master); one for each
> patch.  Then for each patch-branch I'd cherry-pick the commits from my
> original work branch that provide the functionality for that patch.  Then
> proceed as previously described.
>
> Assuming the 2 patches are actually inter-related and the split into 2
> patches is not because they're actually 2 completely different features I'd
> probably still keep doing all the work in the main branch and then
> cherry-pick the commits I need for each patch to their patch-branches.  If
> the features are independent though, I'd just delete the original main
> branch and continue working on the features in their individual
> patch-branches.
>
> This might seem like overkill, or awfully round-about, but it does mean you
> keep the work, patches and master all separate, which is something I like.
>  It's probably possible to do it all with one branch and crazy git-fu
> though.
>
> For creating the actual patches I prefer a single commit, so I'd create
> further branches from my patch-branches and squash the diff between the
> patch-branch and master into it and use it for the purposes for git
> format-patch.  Once the patch is generated you can delete this merge-squash
> branch.  Again, this might be possible without the extra merge-squash
> branch, but I'm not nearly git-y enough.
>

Neat - thanks to you and to Chris for extra ideas on this - both good
solutions to have handy if this ever happens again :)

and big thanks to everyone else here - lots of learnin' done today :)

Taryn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20090820/87fa7ed0/attachment-0003.html>