Source Mage code commit list

[Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>]

Excerpts from flux's message of Thu Apr 01 00:09:06 +0200 2010:
> Vasil Yonkov (bustervill AT gmail.com) wrote [10.04.01 07:00]:
> > Ladislav Hagara suggested devel-gnome-2.30 to be merged with master
> > spell by spell. That way there will be email for every spell, not just
> > a huge one. I can't think of a way of doing this without losing commit
> > history. In master I can do 'git checkout gnome-devel-2.30
> > gnome2-libs/atk' to pull only atk spell. But the commits from
> > devel-gnome-2.30 that lead to that state of the spell will not be
> > present in master.
> > Here is nice and structured diff of the merge:
> > [ 
> > http://scmweb.sourcemage.org/?p=smgl/grimoire.git;a=commitdiff;h=110be86beb50cbc2989b7e1fd1c85c97c3a35dab;hp=0372d0b0cd608a67bcdf7e40eb9a9c3f6895b643
> > ]
> 
> The emails have nothing to do with the commits themselves. Currently our
> emails are generated per-push rather than per-commit (there is an open
> bug about this, bug #). As long as the commits are all there (a merge
> of branches preserves individual commits, so long as they don't cause
> conflicts, otherwise you'd have to fix the conflicts and create new
> commits) there shouldn't be any problems because each separate commit
> could still be reverted (as well as the merge as a whole). In my
> opinion, merging in one operation is the sane way to do it.
> 
> As an aside, you can pull over individual commits using git cherry-pick
> (git checkout is just wrong for this). However, as stated above, a merge
> is the real way to go with this in my opinion.

I agree, a single merge is also giving the correct development history in git.
-- 
Arwed v. Merkatz                              Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
                                                    http://www.sourcemage.org