Re: [DEV] New git workflow

[Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>]

Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 03/24/2012 12:05 PM, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
> > Simon Thum<simon.thum@gmx.de>  writes:
> > It seems that one problem with cherry-picking is the tracking of what is
> > in which branch and from where it comes.
> >
> > I'm not a git neither DVCS guru, but daggyfixes[1][2][3] is saner than
> > cherry-picking.
> 
> I'm a bit biased as I mainly have git experience but to me it seems
> that both cherry-picking and daggy fixes have their strengths and
> weaknesses, and I'd rather have them both in all the VCSes but
> needless fights over which one is ultimately superior. Git should
> probably learn that thing, IMO.
> 

I'm probably missing something but what's there to learn? You check out
the offending commit, make a branch off of it, commit the fix on the
branch, give it a tag (so you can find it easily later on) and then
merge it back anywhere you want. AFAICT, that's all there is to
daggy-fixes and git is perfectly capable of doing that - no?

Nick

> >
> > Footnotes:
> > [1]  http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DaggyFixes
> >
> > [2]  http://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes/
> >
> > [3]  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2922652/git-is-there-a-way-to-figure-out-where-a-commit-was-cherry-picked-from
> >
> 
>