www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: git svn & merging
Date Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:10:18 GMT
The problem with dcommit is the time-span acausality which is possible with git. 
Have you tried 
git merge --squash?
This will package all the diffs from foo into a commit on top of your HEAD.
Maybe you can also do a manual git-rebase of the changes to your HEAD, but that would be much
more work.

In either way you will loose the trackback to foo :(

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Tue, 1/5/10, Paul Querna <paul@querna.org> wrote:

> From: Paul Querna <paul@querna.org>
> Subject: git svn & merging
> To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 2:17 AM
> Common use case of git, merging a
> remote branch:
> 
>    git remote add foo
> git://githubsareus.example.com/foo.git
>    git pull foo
>    git merge foo/master
> 
> Now, if you did a 'git svn dcommit', all of the commits
> done by the
> remote 'foo', would be attributed to you, with no chance to
> edit the
> log message, saying who contributed them.
> 
> It seems the only solution is to create a diff, apply the
> diff, and
> create a new log message:
>      git remote add foo
> git://githubsareus.example.com/foo.git
>      git checkout -b foo-merge
>      git merge jmoe/master
>      git diff trunk  foo-merge
> >foo.patch
>      # now apply .patch & set
> commit log as normal....
> 
> Is there a better way to handle this?
> 
> Specifically for libcloud, we have always used github, and
> still get
> github pull requests from github users containing changes
> to libcloud.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul
> 


      

Mime
View raw message