Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-30 Thread Sergei Organov
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-30 Thread Nico Williams
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).

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-30 Thread Sergei Organov
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Sergei Organov
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',

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Nico Williams
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Philip Oakley
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Nico Williams
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).

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Philip Oakley
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-29 Thread Nico Williams
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-28 Thread Sergei Organov
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
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.

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-28 Thread Sergei Organov
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-28 Thread Nico Williams
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-25 Thread David Besen
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-25 Thread Jonathan Nieder
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

RE: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-25 Thread Besen, David
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

Re: Amending merge commits?

2014-07-25 Thread Jonathan Nieder
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