Re: several quick questions

Dear diary, on Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:40:24PM CET, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] said that...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

quoted

But I'd still like to be able to do this without having to invent a
fake branch name, without the ability to accidentally commit on the
fake branch, and without the possibility of accidentally leaving those
commits dangling the next time I seek somewhere else.

Pasky did this before the "multi-branch" thing was common, and calls it 
"cg-seek". 

I think that does exactly what you ask for, I just don't really see the 
point. The downside of cg-seek is that you're really really limited to 
what you can do with it.

For example, it may be "overhead" to have a dummy branch for bisection, 
but it means (for example) that you can actually do real work on the point 
that "git bisect" points you to.

For example, if you hit a compile error, you can _literally_ fix that 
compile error AND COMMIT that state, and when you then mark that commit 
"good" or "bad" when you continue to bisect, bisection will actually do 
the right thing. Something that would be impossible in a "seek" 
environment, where you don't have a branch that you can do development on.

That's a neat idea - I like this. I just tweaked cg-commit -f so that it
will now override the cg-seek block, with a warning that you should be
content about your commit being thrown away.

Really, except this blocking restriction (which is really a check for a
non-empty .git/blocked file), cg-seek does exactly the fake branch
thing, as you actually persuaded me to do. So you are on a dedicated
seeking branch and theoretically you can do development on it - it's
only too easy to lose the commits.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Of the 3 great composers Mozart tells us what it's like to be human,
Beethoven tells us what it's like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us
what it's like to be the universe.  -- Douglas Adams