Branching strategy for git

John Ralls jralls at
Tue Mar 25 14:45:57 EDT 2014

On Mar 25, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <zeldigas at> wrote:

> As I said, you'll just see a fork and merge but without identification of "private branch". I made a small local example and the result:
> *   124d38e (HEAD, origin/master, master) Merge branch 'private'
> |\  
> | * cbcff86 change in private
> * | ebe2dec another commit in master
> * | 4bfde8e change in master
> |/  
> * 9b2b43b initial
> full prompt of the process with "upstream" repos and two "dev" is in attachment

Thanks for running the test to confirm it.

John Ralls

> 2014-03-25 22:00 GMT+04:00 John Ralls <jralls at>:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <zeldigas at> wrote:
> > Branch is just a pointer to head of revisions list (node in revision tree) .
> > So if you merge private branch in branch that is then pushed to public, it will be visible like this:
> >
> > But without pointer to iss53
> Yes, that’s what I said I thought was the case.* I’d have more confidence in that claim if the reference wasn’t figure 3.17 from in the section “basic merging”. Unfortunately, Chacon doesn’t explicitly cover what the history on the remote will look like when one pushes the merge of a private branch, even in where he covers the subject explicitly; he seems to consider only the case where all branches are pushed, and he illustrates only what the local repo looks like.
> Regards,
> John Ralls
> *Quibble: Not quite a pointer. More like a symbolic link in the file system or a database foreign key, because it contains the *name* of the commit, not its address. And not necessarily the head of the list; the commit pointed to may be the parent of another commit, as it is in the illustration.
> -- 
> С уважением, 
> Дмитрий Павлов
> <private-branch-merge.txt>

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list