Carlos, the merge we did from master2->master was just one nasty commit with the full diff applied, without merging the actually tree history (since the merge was not clean, long story, but we tried to preserve history without success).
So, if you want to see any individual commits done between when cordova-cli 3.0.0 branched away from master and was merged back in, you have to use the master2 branch. I think likely the manifestation of this issue will be when doing a git blame, many lines of code are attributed to the merge commit done by Andrew (thats how he gets his commit counts up ;) Tagging and deleting the branch sounds like a great option. -Michal On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not 100% sure what you guys mean by "post-merge pre-3.0" > > But in general tagging is very useful to mark a hash, and to go back and > find it with a useful name. > > Since you merged master2 into master, all history lives in master now. > > if you want to create a branch in the future you can always create a branch > using the tag, so master2 branch can always be re-created if deleted. > > So you can tag master2 at the hash point 11dd24e > | | * 11dd24e (origin/master2) removed ripple documentation for now. > > > https://www.evernote.com/shard/s34/sh/f75ae07c-24df-44a0-bb1e-71b6ebebc14f/2699c036c09176f33b0229ecc7e52e19 > > --Carlos > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > Yep, great idea (tagging vs branch) > > > > I think post-merge pre-3.0 history will exist only on master branch > > regardless of tag vs branch. confirm? > > > > I've removed bb10RemovePrompt, future, future-bb10. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I like Carlos' idea of tagging master2 and deleting it. > > > > > > This cleans up the branches so no-one will mistakenly commit to it, but > > > also preserves the history and we can add a message to the tag > explaining > > > what it was used for and why it was deleted. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Agree with Andrew, rename the branch to pre-3.0-history > > > > > > > > On 7/9/13 10:45 AM, "Carlos Santana" <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >I propose to kill master 2 branch, and instead use a tag > > > "pre-3.0-history" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Good idea. Let's comment on which ones can be removed. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Carlos Santana < > > csantan...@gmail.com > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Deleting some abandon branches might be a good cleanup exercise, > > and > > > > >>make > > > > >> > it clear to use 'master' > > > > >> > > > > > >> > - master2 > > > > >> > > > > > >> This we should keep around since it has a sane history. Let's > rename > > > it > > > > >> though. Maybe to "pre-3.0-history" > > > > >> > > > > >> > - future > > > > >> > > > > > >> This can be removed. > > > > >> > > > > >> > - lazy > > > > >> > - merges > > > > >> > - bb10RemovePrompt > > > > >> > - future-bb10 > > > > >> > - dependencies > > > > >> > > > > > >> This was merged and can be removed. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks Andrew! > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Ian, will do. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On 7/5/13 8:14 AM, "Ian Clelland" <iclell...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >Doh. I *just* submitted a pull req against master2. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >Fil -- let me know if you have any problems with it, and I'll > > > > >>resubmit > > > > >> > as > > > > >> > > >necessary. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Grieve > > > > >><agri...@chromium.org> > > > > >> > > >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> Okay, I made master look like master2, but the commit log > is > > > > >> > essentially > > > > >> > > >> lost. Have not removed master2. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> git rm -r . > > > > >> > > >> git checkout --theirs master2 -- . > > > > >> > > >> git commit -a > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Maybe lets now go back to committing to master, and keep > > > master2 > > > > >> > around > > > > >> > > >>for > > > > >> > > >> history's sake? > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Michal Mocny > > > > >><mmo...@chromium.org> > > > > >> > > >>wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > (small correction, next was actually called future). > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > Also, I don't see any work being done on master. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Michal Mocny > > > > >><mmo...@chromium.org > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > If master is in use, then I think that is a mistake. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > As far as I'm aware, master branch should be "dead" > > right? > > > > >>We > > > > >> > had a > > > > >> > > >> > > 'next' branch that was for 3.0 work which diverged from > > > > >>master > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > >>the > > > > >> > > >> > > merge back was not clean (for various reasons), hence > we > > > > >> > > >>"temporarily" > > > > >> > > >> > went > > > > >> > > >> > > with a master2 until we could just "overwrite" master. > > > Since > > > > >> that > > > > >> > > >> seems > > > > >> > > >> > to > > > > >> > > >> > > not be possible, Andrew is suggesting we go ahead with > > the > > > > >>not > > > > >> > clean > > > > >> > > >> > merge > > > > >> > > >> > > (history may look awkward), but do away with this > > > ridiculous > > > > >> > > >>situation. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Did I summarize that right? > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Brian LeRoux < > b...@brian.io > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > >> So, what is the difference between master and master2? > > > Right > > > > >> now, > > > > >> > > >> > >> master from what I understand is in heavy use w/ > tonnes > > of > > > > >>bugs > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > >> > >> fixes. > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Ian Clelland < > > > > >> > iclell...@google.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > >> > We've had that ticket open for some time now, and > > Braden > > > > >>has > > > > >> > > >>tried > > > > >> > > >> on > > > > >> > > >> > a > > > > >> > > >> > >> > couple of occasions to get some movement on it, but > > > > >>there's > > > > >> > been > > > > >> > > >>no > > > > >> > > >> > >> action > > > > >> > > >> > >> > so far. > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Filip Maj < > > > f...@adobe.com > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> If you want to give it a shot, go for it! > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Didn't we have an INFRA issue filed for them to > move > > > the > > > > >> > master > > > > >> > > >> HEAD > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> pointer to master2 and fix this for us? :P > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> On 7/4/13 9:23 AM, "Andrew Grieve" < > > > agri...@chromium.org > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >I feel that having master2 around is now causing > us > > > more > > > > >> harm > > > > >> > > >>than > > > > >> > > >> > >> would > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >be > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >done if we just merged it into master. I'd like to > > > > >>merge it > > > > >> > > >>into > > > > >> > > >> > >> master, > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >delete master2, and move on. > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Carlos Santana > > > > >> > <csantan...@gmail.com> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >Carlos Santana > > > > ><csantan...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > <csantan...@gmail.com> >
