| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-02 16:42:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4A25565A.3090408@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/02/2009 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> At the same time, I don't really buy the theory that relating commits on
> different branches via merges will work. In my experience it is very
> seldom the case that a patch applies to each back branch with no manual
> effort whatever, which is what I gather the merge functionality could
> help with. So maybe there's not much help to be had on this ...
You can do a merge and change the commit during that - this way you get
the merge tracking information correct although you did a merge so that
further merge operations can consider the specific change to be applied
on both/some/all branches.
This will happen by default if there is a merge conflict or can be
forced by using the --no-commit option to merge.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-06-02 16:43:08 | Re: pg_standby -l might destory the archived file |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-02 16:41:21 | Re: pg_standby -l might destory the archived file |