John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes:
Last time this came up [1], there was some discussion about moving the
added block of code to affect upstreams given on the command line as
well as when the upstream is discovered from the config. Having tried
that, it has some more fallout on the test
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:11:50PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk writes:
Last time this came up [1], there was some discussion about moving the
added block of code to affect upstreams given on the command line as
well as when the upstream is discovered from
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense that
'git rebase' defaults to the same thing.
but that isn't
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense
Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes:
I think
git merge-base HEAD $(git rev-list -g $upstream_name)
is roughly correct and hopefully fast enough. That can lead to too
long a command line, so I was planning on teaching merge-base a
--stdin option, but never got around to it.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:40:22PM -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:24 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:03:29PM -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:03:29PM -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense that
'git rebase' defaults to the same thing.
but that isn't
Hi,
John Keeping wrote:
Since commit d44e712 (pull: support
rebased upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19), pull has actually
chosen the most recent reflog entry which is an ancestor of the current
branch if it can find one.
Change rebase so that
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:24:13PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
John Keeping wrote:
Since commit d44e712 (pull: support
rebased upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19), pull has actually
chosen the most recent reflog entry which is an ancestor of
13 matches
Mail list logo
