From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [DEV] New git workflow
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:29:47 -0400
Message-ID: <32435.1332617387@alphaville>
References: <87mx7cf613.fsf@altern.org> <4F69063F.40600@gmx.de>
	<87fwcyqmwe.fsf@hati.baby-gnu.org> <4F6E29AD.1040304@gmx.de>
Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58419)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1SBWex-0001QB-Nj
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:29:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1SBWev-0002Km-Pb
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:29:55 -0400
Received: from g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.63]:9218)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1SBWev-0002KU-KI
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:29:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: Message from Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de>
	of "Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:08:13 BST." <4F6E29AD.1040304@gmx.de>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de>
Cc: Daniel Dehennin <daniel.dehennin@baby-gnu.org>, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, 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
> >
> 
>