On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 20:15, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 09/10/2011 19:03, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 17:59, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 09/10/2011 16:49, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 15:38, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 09/10/2011 14:36, Jiří Techet a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 13:55, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote: [...] > * 03c3b75 (r3679) is a bit weird too, it has d3cdd27 (r3680) as parent, > but as the SVN revision suggests, d3cdd27 is newer than it (13:53:04 vs > 13:45:47). And I don't see from SVN log why this would be wanted.
This is apparently my error - judging from the date I should have used d71d352 for "merge trunk changes". I'll fix that.
Great, looking forward to it. I think when this is done all is OK, so we could import it in the official repo :)
OK, I've re-uploaded the repositories to the same locations. I've fixed the incorrect merge issue and updated parents for most of the re-created branches.
Yep, looks great, bravo!
The only one I haven't updated is the "Create branch for configurable build menu development", now commit 80d2802. There's something strange
- it appears the branch existed before but it was never merged into
trunk. Instead it was probably deleted and re-created again. If I updated the parent to be the trunk only, we'd lose the history of this branch because we couldn't get to the previous commits in any way. So I think it's better to keep it the way it is.
OK, makes sense, even though the old build-system branch was dropped because it was "corrupted" (according to r3939: "Removing corrupted branch").
Ah, OK, I've overlooked this. If you want to make some more changes, create a file called "grafts" inside .git/info. Each line of this file has format
parent child1 child2 child3... (using commit SHAs depending on number of children)
Isn't it rather child parent1 parent2...? Looks like it does a better job, if I understand the result correctly ^^ anyway, thanks for the tips :)
Correct. I used sequence
writing thinking1 thinking2 thinking3
instead of
thinking writing1 writing2 writing3
which explains the result :-).
Anyway I chosen to keep the previous branch as you did it so there is some more history, yet it is strange.
Agree, it's hard to say what the right way is in this case anyway.
Cheers, Jiri