On 2012-03-02 20:30, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Friday, 2 March 2012 at 18:10:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Both should work, and the man page is going to be for git-rebase.
Pretty much
all of the git commands can be used with or without a -.
On my system, the dashed commands are not
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:16:59 -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you make changes in a branch and want them on top of what's in
master, then do
git-rebase master
While git-rebase may be available on your system, I think the typical
spelling would be
git rebase master
Graham
in _the
On Friday, March 02, 2012 14:47:00 Graham Fawcett wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:16:59 -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you make changes in a branch and want them on top of what's in
master, then do
git-rebase master
While git-rebase may be available on your system, I think the
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:30:07 +0100, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Friday, 2 March 2012 at 18:10:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Both should work, and the man page is going to be for git-rebase.
Pretty much
all of the git commands can be used with or without a -.
On my system, the dashed
OK, so I'm new to git, and I ran into this problem:
- I forked druntime on github and made some changes in a branch
- Pushed the changes to the fork
- Pulled upstream commits to master
- Merged master with branch
- Ran git rebase master, so that my changes appear on top of the latest
upstream
When people say git encourages rewriting history. Don't listen. Once you
have pushed your changes to the world they are immutable. This is because
git uses cryptography internally and changing the history messes everything
up. If you haven't pushed you can change all of your history and it
On 01.03.2012 19:11, H. S. Teoh wrote:
OK, so I'm new to git, and I ran into this problem:
- I forked druntime on github and made some changes in a branch
- Pushed the changes to the fork
I use the magic
pull --rebase how-ever-you-call-dlang master
instead of these 3 if I have changes but
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:33AM -0500, Kevin Cox wrote:
When people say git encourages rewriting history. Don't listen. Once
you have pushed your changes to the world they are immutable. This is
because git uses cryptography internally and changing the history
messes everything up. If
On Mar 1, 2012 12:15 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:33AM -0500, Kevin Cox wrote:
When people say git encourages rewriting history. Don't listen. Once
you have pushed your changes to the world they are immutable. This is
because git uses
OK, so what's the right way to do it then? I have some changes in a
branch, but master has been updated since, so I want to merge in the
latest updates so that the branch changes are compatible with the latest
code.
I use a quite crappy way to rebase my feature branch:
git stash git checkout
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 09:17:18 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:33AM -0500, Kevin Cox wrote:
When people say git encourages rewriting history. Don't listen. Once
you have pushed your changes to the world they are immutable. This is
because git uses cryptography
Unless you have an expectation that other people are already using the old
version of your branch, just use 'git push blah -f' to overwrite the old
version. It's not a big deal for patches and pull requests, but it would be
a disaster if anyone did this to the master branch.
H. S. Teoh
12 matches
Mail list logo
