Re: The essential problems of moving from CVS

[Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:53:38PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > Particular Git features I can think of that I think most developers
> > > would agree would be big wins are:
> > >
> > >     * much, much better branch maintenance support, particularly for
> > >     multiple merges from one branch to another;
> >
> > The multple merging is probably something you never want to do, IMO.
> 
> Multiple merging is something that we often want to do (for example,
> from -current to a long-lived feature branch).  Fortunately, git
> supports that just fine.

I'm referring to octopus merging.

> > But yes, branches and merging in Git are painless.
> 
> Well, painless if you want to merge all changes from one branch into
> another branch.  But if you want to cherry-pick just a few changes,
> things get difficult.  "git cherry-pick" can be used to copy a changeset
> from one branch to another, but it doesn't record meta-data saying
> what it has done (except as text in the log message).  In the NetBSD

Sure -- the only thing you can do here is "git cherry-pick -e".

There is "git-notes" which allows you to annotate commits; metadata that
isn't part of the commit itself.  That's now in git.git/master, for
instance.

> release process, individual changesets are cherry-picked from -current
> to branches all the time, and it would be good to have a repository
> visualisation tool that could show which changes have or have not been
> merged.

gitk?


-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"It was the cruelest game I've ever played and it's played inside my head."
-- "Hush The Warmth", Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.