[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs

From: Andreas Schwab
Subject: Re: Should we restore manually maintained ChangeLogs
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:05:06 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:43:57 +0100
>> > Mercurial with the "evolve" extension implements non-destructive history
>> > editing. In short, commits can have metadata that marks them as
>> > "superseding" a previous commit. Both superseded and new commit remain
>> > part of the repository, but most commands be default work on the
>> > superseding commit.
>> Like git replace.
> Do you know how does "git replace" interact with merging, rebasing,
> and cherry-picking?  The man page doesn't seem to mention these.

git replace should be transparent most of the time (except for some
plumbing like git cat-file, and you can ignore replacements with
--no-replace-objects).  But note that they are stored in a different
namespace that is not pulled by default.


Andreas Schwab, address@hidden
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]