No, not correct in my books. git checkout BRANCH # Assuming it's local already git fetch upstream # risk free, unlike pull! git rebase upstream/master # diff difftool merge mergetool settings are useful, prompt = false and specify your diff tool in advance git push --force upstream BRANCH # After verifying no one has pushed to it # create pull request/email someone/communicate your intention to have it merged
^ correct in my books, others may differ. On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Christian Schulte <c...@schulte.it> wrote: > Am 16.01.2017 um 08:27 schrieb Fred Cooke: > > Rebase is the only clean way forward for small projects in which people > > step on each others toes. > > > > Merge commits are difficult to comprehend for some developers, leading to > > errors. Avoiding them is beneficial. > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> > > wrote: > > > >> do we want to keep such merge commits? > > Just to clarify. I should have done the following: > > cmd> git checkout master > cmd> git merge BRANCH > cmd> git rebase (possible -i to do some housekeeping) > cmd> git push > > Correct? I did this but then decided to keep that merge commit so that > it's obvious that there had been a branch carrying the commit(s). > > Regards, > -- > Christian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
