Simon Thum <simon.t...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 03/24/2012 12:05 PM, Daniel Dehennin wrote: > > Simon Thum<simon.t...@gmx.de> writes: > > It seems that one problem with cherry-picking is the tracking of what is > > in which branch and from where it comes. > > > > I'm not a git neither DVCS guru, but daggyfixes[1][2][3] is saner than > > cherry-picking. > > I'm a bit biased as I mainly have git experience but to me it seems > that both cherry-picking and daggy fixes have their strengths and > weaknesses, and I'd rather have them both in all the VCSes but > needless fights over which one is ultimately superior. Git should > probably learn that thing, IMO. >
I'm probably missing something but what's there to learn? You check out the offending commit, make a branch off of it, commit the fix on the branch, give it a tag (so you can find it easily later on) and then merge it back anywhere you want. AFAICT, that's all there is to daggy-fixes and git is perfectly capable of doing that - no? Nick > > > > Footnotes: > > [1] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DaggyFixes > > > > [2] http://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes/ > > > > [3] > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2922652/git-is-there-a-way-to-figure-out-where-a-commit-was-cherry-picked-from > > > >
