* David Cantrell <da...@cantrell.org.uk> [2013-12-12 20:40]: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:38:46AM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> [2013-12-04 15:30]: > > > Well, "git rebase" did not work properly (too many silly merge > > > commits for stuff that predates my contributions) but > > > a semi-manual "git cherry-pick" appears to have worked well. > > git rebase --onto silug/master d601c5b shlomi/master > > Then a few `git rm -f META.yml && git rebase --continue` later > > you???d???ve gotten what I think is just what???s in your pull > > request. > > Or simpler, turn your commits into a sequence of patches, clone the > author's repo, apply your patches to the clone, issue pull request. > Better IMO than playing git --russian roulette with its powerful but > underdocumented tools for doing unusual stuff.
… while turning the crank on your computer to keep the power going, sure, exactly. Unusual? Russian roulette? I do this sort of thing for breakfast, lunch and supper, never got seriously surprised, and I can get out of whatever botch might come out if I *do* try something out of the ordinary. Maybe precisely because I do this stuff constantly. Just to be sure that I wasn’t about to embarrass myself, I tried what I wrote up there before I sent the mail, using clones of the mentioned repos. Well whaddayaknow, Git did in fact do exactly what I expected it was going to. I really don’t get the fear. Be afraid of your tools and they’ll give you reason to be. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
