Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Sergei Organov o...@javad.com wrote:
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
That exception aside, keeping all local commits on top by always
rebasing them onto the upstream is extremely useful: a) in simplifying
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Sergei Organov o...@javad.com wrote:
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
Local merge commits mean that you either didn't rebase to keep all
your local commits on top of the upstream, or that you have multiple
upstreams (the example exception I gave).
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Sergei Organov o...@javad.com wrote:
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
Local merge commits mean that you either didn't rebase to keep all
your local commits on top of the upstream, or that you have multiple
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Sergei Organov wrote:
Is there any scenario at all where pull --rebase=true wins over
preserve?
Basically always in my book. ;-)
When people turn on 'pull --rebase',
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Sergei Organov o...@javad.com wrote:
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
That exception aside, keeping all local commits on top by always
rebasing them onto the upstream is extremely useful: a) in simplifying
conflict resolution, b) making it easy to
From: Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Sergei Organov o...@javad.com wrote:
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
That exception aside, keeping all local commits on top by always
rebasing them onto the upstream is extremely useful: a) in
simplifying
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org wrote:
From: Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com
Local merge commits mean that you either didn't rebase to keep all
your local commits on top of the upstream, or that you have multiple
upstreams (the example exception I gave).
From: Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org
wrote:
From: Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com
Local merge commits mean that you either didn't rebase to keep all
your local commits on top of the upstream, or that you have multiple
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org wrote:
From: Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com
That workflow works just fine with git.
I'm not saying that it isn't a good technique and can work well. Rather I'm
saying we should be tolerant of the rules and techniques of
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
David Besen wrote:
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
This is how pull --rebase works. It turns your single-parent commits
into a sequence of patches on top of upstream and completely ignores
your merge commits.
There is a --rebase=preserve option that
Sergei Organov wrote:
Is there any scenario at all where pull --rebase=true wins over
preserve?
Basically always in my book. ;-)
When people turn on 'pull --rebase', they are asking for a clean,
simplified history where their changes are small discrete patches in a
clump on top of upstream.
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Sergei Organov wrote:
Is there any scenario at all where pull --rebase=true wins over
preserve?
Basically always in my book. ;-)
When people turn on 'pull --rebase', they are asking for a clean,
simplified history where their changes are small
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Sergei Organov wrote:
Is there any scenario at all where pull --rebase=true wins over
preserve?
Basically always in my book. ;-)
When people turn on 'pull --rebase', they are asking for a clean,
simplified history
Besen, David david.besen at hp.com writes:
Hi folks,
I think one of my coworkers has stumbled on a git bug -- if you amend a
merge commit, and then pull, your amends
are lost.
Is this expected behavior?
I've reproduced the problem in a script (attached). I ran it against a
Besen, David wrote:
I think one of my coworkers has stumbled on a git bug -- if you
amend a merge commit, and then pull, your amends are lost.
This is how pull --rebase works. It turns your single-parent commits
into a sequence of patches on top of upstream and completely ignores
your merge
Ah thanks, I'll RTFM better in the future.
- Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Nieder [mailto:jrnie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Besen, David
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Amending merge commits?
Besen, David wrote:
I think one of my coworkers has
David Besen wrote:
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
This is how pull --rebase works. It turns your single-parent commits
into a sequence of patches on top of upstream and completely ignores
your merge commits.
There is a --rebase=preserve option that makes a halfhearted attempt
to preserve your
17 matches
Mail list logo