Den tisdag 17 november 2015 kl. 19:40:15 UTC+1 skrev Konstantin Khomoutov:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:02:03 -0800 (PST) 
> mike < <javascript:>> wrote: 
> > I have had a branch, feature_xyz, for a long time ( yes I know I 
> > should not but it was not my call). Problem is I have not updated it 
> > with changes from master. So I started to do a regular rebase ( i 
> > want to keep history): 
> > 
> > git fetch origin master 
> > git rebase origin/master 
> > 
> > After a while with conflicting patches (over 30...) I guess that 
> > there must be an easier way to do this, 
> > 
> > So anyone out there with an better idea I am open to new ideas. What 
> > do you suggest? 
> What prevents you from just merging master into it? 

Not absolutely sure but I guess it is for keeping history of changes when I 
merge back to master. 

> Rebasing is only actually needed if you want to keep your work "on top" 
> of the branch it was based on.

What do you mean with the expression "on top"?

>  The primary use case for keeping your 
> patch series on top of an "upstream" branch is the need to mail them 
> as a series of patches to upstream or have a clean run of history for 
> the upstream to have an easy-to-digest merge from your branch. 
> br,.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to