From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suvayu Ali Subject: Re: [babel][PATCHES] ob-R patches for review Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:23:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20140512122359.GB2684@chitra.no-ip.org> References: <87ppjpm5n5.fsf@gmail.com> <8F4A9158-D8BD-4FE7-8D9A-A22C4871BDB6@gmail.com> <87ppjnt88e.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <874n0zhvgi.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42597) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjpH2-0002zB-4v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2014 08:24:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjpH1-0006lO-2I for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2014 08:24:04 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::236]:35671) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjpH0-0006lH-Qp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 12 May 2014 08:24:03 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b57so4657123eek.13 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 05:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chitra.no-ip.org ([2001:610:120:3001:2ad2:44ff:fe4a:b029]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w6sm32589446eej.7.2014.05.12.05.24.00 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 May 2014 05:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:33:48AM +0200, Rainer M Krug wrote: > Eric Schulte writes: > > > Rainer M Krug writes: > > > >> Bastien writes: > >> > >>> Hi Rainer, > >>> > >>> Rainer M Krug writes: > >>> > >>>> I'll look at it again tomorrow and let you know as I made some changes > >>>> since then. Do you prefer one patch to several? > >>> > >>> Up to Eric's taste -- but in general I think a series of patches > >>> is better, it allows you to isolate and fix conflicts more easily. > >> > > > > I agree, multiple patches make future maintenance easier. > > > > OK - I'll do so. > > A little bit off-topic, is there a "git way" of splitting one patch into > several patches, if it was a single commit? Do an interactive rebase, and amend. Say this is the commit graph: A---B---C---D You want to split B. Then you do: $ git rebase -i B~ In the editor that pops out, you choose `edit' for B, leave the others unchanged. Then git will checkout A for you, and wait for you to edit. Now you can apply patch B in parts (by hand). $ git show B > patch $ # apply part1 of patch (assuming you are breaking it into 2 parts) $ git commit -a -m "Message for part1" # lets say this is B1 $ # apply rest of the patch $ git commit -a -m "Message for the rest" # and this is B2 $ git rebase --continue Now your commit graph should be like this: A---B1---B2---C---D Hope this helps, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.