Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>> So from where are you proposing Git to grab that information if you
>> do not tell it? "If the HEAD is detached, assume that the base is
>> where it was detached from" or something?
>
> That would also work for me. In my first mail I was proposing to take
> the information from the format-patch argument, such that a one off fix
> would be:
>
> (1) git checkout origin/master
> (2) EDIT
> (3) git commit -a -m "fix"
> (4) git format-patch origin/master.. # <- This is the information.
>
> However you read it as taking the information from the first line,
> which is also fine with me, as then the (4) can become
>
> (4a) git format-patch HEAD^
Either would work, but reading from (4) feels a lot less black magic
to me.
>> If you are doing "format-patch master..my-branch", what do you
>> propose to set your base to? master@{u}, perhaps?
>
> Yes. (I usually use that command with |s|master|origin/master|, so the
> argument is the upstream already. A local master branch does not exist for
> me.)
Let's hear from folks at Intel ;-) Both of the above sounds like
sensible enhancements to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
