Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Heh, anybody can blindly apply the patches corresponding to the branch > and attach to it a sane commit message. If that was the real problem, it > would most probably already be done and we wouldn't discuss here. > > But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. In this process, > he will rearrange the changes in smaller logical chunks. > > If the code had been submitted in that form (easy to review), the branch > would most probably already have been merged and we would be done.
What about keeping the (bad) real history (so that merging with out-tree branch will still be easy) AND presenting logical chunks easy to review ? I imagine the current situation is something as A0 ---- A1 ----- ... ----- A mainline branch \ \ B1 ---- B2 ---- .... ---- B trigger branch with crap history (and several merges from mainline) Then go to the situation : A0 ---- A1 ----- ... ------- A ---- P1 ---- ... ---- P6 logical chunks easy to review \ \ \ \ B1 ---- B2 ---- .... ---- B - M1 --------------------- M final commit to push with the property that M1, M and P3 represent exactly the same source tree (but obviously they are not the same commit as they do not have the same history) There will still be some commit with crap log (Bx) in the git repo but, if no one create branches from Bx or M1, one would always be able to follow an easy to understand path from the base to its commit (by looking the changes on the Px path and knowing that the merge M merges two *identical* trees) Best regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]