Hello,
I added the git list to Cc:. For the new readers: The context of this
thread can be found at
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20191017234348.wcbbo2njexn7ixpk@willie-the-truck/
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:46:58AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Anyway, a small Git feature request: it would be sup
Denton Liu writes:
> Hi Pratyush,
>
> Since you're the maintainer now, you should submit a patch to
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches to change
>
> - `git-gui/` comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
>
> git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
>
> to have your own informat
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:50:51PM -0700, Denton Liu wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Bert Wesarg (2):
> > git-gui: convert new/amend commit radiobutton to checkbutton
> > git-gui: add horizontal scrollbar to commit buffer
> >
> >
Hi Pratyush,
Since you're the maintainer now, you should submit a patch to
Documentation/SubmittingPatches to change
- `git-gui/` comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
to have your own information.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 01:
Hi Junio,
There were some topics and discussion related to git-gui in flight. Most
of them have been stabilized, and merged in. So I think it's a good time
to pull in those changes.
---
The following changes since commit
5ab72271e16ac23c269f5019a74a7b1d65170e47:
Merge remote-tracking branch
Paul Mackerras writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> Whenever it's convenient, please do a pull from my gitk repository at
> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk.git to get four commits updating gitk.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
Will do. Thanks.
Hi Junio,
Whenever it's convenient, please do a pull from my gitk repository at
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk.git to get four commits updating gitk.
Thanks,
Paul.
Gabriele Mazzotta (1):
gitk: Do not mistake unchanged lines fo
Jiang Xin writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.23.0.
>
> The following changes since commit 2e27de94d485a6da0c8e264c165e55100f1a13a8:
>
> Git 2.23-rc2 (2019-08-09 10:15:39 -0700)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> git://github.com/git-l10n/git-
Hi Junio,
Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.23.0.
The following changes since commit 2e27de94d485a6da0c8e264c165e55100f1a13a8:
Git 2.23-rc2 (2019-08-09 10:15:39 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.23.0-rnd2
for you to
Allen:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:35:44AM -0500, Allen Kinzalow wrote:
> Hello,
Hi,
> I have attached the output of a "git pull" command. Suddenly we
> are unable to pull or fetch anything from our repository. It is
> temporarily fixed by deleting .git/packed-refs but quic
Hello,
I have attached the output of a "git pull" command. Suddenly we are
unable to pull or fetch anything from our repository. It is temporarily
fixed by deleting .git/packed-refs but quickly starts happening again.
I have attached the output of where it stops execution. We are
Jiang Xin writes:
> Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.22.0.
>
> The following changes since commit 74583d89127e21255c12dd3c8a3bf60b497d7d03:
>
> Git 2.22-rc3 (2019-06-03 11:25:12 -0700)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2
Hi Junio,
Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.22.0.
The following changes since commit 74583d89127e21255c12dd3c8a3bf60b497d7d03:
Git 2.22-rc3 (2019-06-03 11:25:12 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.22.0-rnd3
for you to
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 10:53 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> The interesting thing is that not only git will treat lightweight tags
> like, well, tags:
Yeah, that's very much by design - lightweight tags are very
comvenient for local temporary stuff where you don't want signing etc
(think automated
On 03/05/2019 11:28, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:25 PM Christian Spanier wrote:
Hi,
I found a bug where Git may delete untracked files without notice in
certain situations. This bug effects Git 2.21.0 both on Linux and Windows.
In summary this happens when git pull merges a
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:25 PM Christian Spanier wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I found a bug where Git may delete untracked files without notice in
> certain situations. This bug effects Git 2.21.0 both on Linux and Windows.
> In summary this happens when git pull merges a commit that repl
Hi,
I found a bug where Git may delete untracked files without notice in
certain situations. This bug effects Git 2.21.0 both on Linux and Windows.
In summary this happens when git pull merges a commit that replaces a
submodule folder with a symlink. Any files within the folder are deleted
On 22/04/2019 00:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"brian m. carlson" writes:
It may be helpful to point out that this is essentially the workflow I
had ...
I'm not sure if this email is an argument for or against this option,
but maybe it provides some helpful perspective.
I think you and Philli
BOMPARD CORENTIN p1603631 writes:
> Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
Add _a_?
> which lets the user set the upstream configuration
> (branch..merge and
> branch..remote) for the current branch.
>
> For example a typical use-case like
I don't understand th
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> It may be helpful to point out that this is essentially the workflow I
> had ...
> I'm not sure if this email is an argument for or against this option,
> but maybe it provides some helpful perspective.
I think you and Phillip misread me.
I did not question if the w
--fixup" (or "--squash") for this purpose and
squash only before submitting, but there are situations where fixup
commits cause conflicts and it's necessary to do a rebase and force push
if you don't want extensive pain.
So while I think that "git pull --rebase" or &quo
expected to think about
what you're doing before running `git push --force` and clobbering a
remote branch. Similarly, you would be expected to think about what
you're doing before running `git pull --reset` and clobbering a local
branch. It's actually easier to recover from accidentally
to the second repository, which was
> further polished, making the earlier WIP you had here irrelevant).
You may be right. On the other hand, you're expected to think about
what you're doing before running `git push --force` and clobbering a
remote branch. Similarly, you would be expect
age users to
make a habit to have) an extra step to inspect what the user is
about to lose with "git log origin.." after "fetch" but before
"reset --hard".
So I have a moderately strong suspicion that "git pull --reset"
promotes a wrong workflow and should not exist.
first computer, they must then run the cumbersome command
`git fetch && git reset --hard origin`. (Actually, at this point Git
novices often try running `git pull --force`, but it doesn't do what
they expect.) This patch adds the shortcut `git pull --reset` to serve
as a complement to `git
ge` in linkgit:git-config[1].
>
> Probably the reasoning was to make a symmetry between "git push
> --set-upstream", which mentions "pull" in the doc, and the new "git pull
> --set-upstream". However, I do not think there should be such symmetry:
Yeah, if &q
s. For more information,
>> see `branch..merge` in linkgit:git-config[1].
>>
>> Probably the reasoning was to make a symmetry between "git push
>> --set-upstream", which mentions "pull" in the doc, and the new "git pull
>> --set-upstream&quo
Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
which lets the user set the upstream configuration
(branch..merge and
branch..remote) for the current branch.
For example a typical use-case like
git clone http://example.com/my-public-fork
git remote add main http://example.com/project
>Corentin BOMPARD writes:
>
>> Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
>> which lets the user set the upstream configuration
>> for the current branch.
>
> I think it is a good idea to mention what you exactly mean by "the
> upstream configuratio
BOMPARD CORENTIN p1603631 writes:
> + warning(_("No source branch found. \n You need to
> specify excatly "
> + "one branch with the
> set-upstream option."));
s/excatly/exactly/
Also, this " \n " is weird, the trailing whitespac
Junio C Hamano writes:
>> --- a/Documentation/fetch-options.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/fetch-options.txt
>> @@ -165,6 +165,11 @@ ifndef::git-pull[]
>> Disable recursive fetching of submodules (this has the same effect as
>> using the `--recurse-submodul
Corentin BOMPARD writes:
> Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
> which lets the user set the upstream configuration
> for the current branch.
I think it is a good idea to mention what you exactly mean by "the
upstream configuration" here.
Do you mean
Add the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
which lets the user set the upstream configuration
for the current branch.
For example a typical use-case like
git clone http://example.com/my-public-fork
git remote add main http://example.com/project-main-repo
git pull main master
lly submit a pull request. However, if the user switches back to
> the first computer, they must then run the cumbersome command
> `git fetch && git reset --hard origin`. (Actually, at this point Git
> novices often try running `git pull --force`, but it doesn't do what
&
first computer, they must then run the cumbersome command
`git fetch && git reset --hard origin`. (Actually, at this point Git
novices often try running `git pull --force`, but it doesn't do what
they expect.) This patch adds the shortcut `git pull --reset` to serve
as a complement to `git
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:31 PM Paul Morelle wrote:
>> The problem here is the option parser of this command would try to
>> parse all options, so it considers both --quiet the same thing and are
>> to tell "submodule--foreach" to be quiet, the second --quiet is
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/158 for
details).
So I don't think it is worth the bother to fix that mode with respect to
--quiet.
Ciao,
Johannes
Hello,
Just a quick request for an enhancement to the behavior of the following
command:
git pull --autostash --rebase
When executed with local, untracked files that would conflict with newly-added
files upstream, e.g.
An untracked local file `master:/foo` would be overwritten by a
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:09 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > -- 8< --
> (snip patch, please add my DCO signed-off-by)
> Tested-by: Robin H. Johnson
> Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson
> > -- 8< --
> >
> > I'm a bit reluctant to follow up with a proper patch because I can't
> > digest the t5572-subm
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:18:35PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> ...
Thanks, I tested, and had good results in almost all of my tests.
Almost all: config setting of 'pull.rebase=preserve'
===
$ git submodule foreach --quiet git pull --quiet origin master >/dev/null
Successfully reb
back. I noticed it first in a 2.18.0->2.21.0
> upgrade, and did a partial bisect based on tags to trace it to 2.19.0.
>
> ===
> $ git submodule foreach --quiet git pull origin master --quiet >/dev/null
> From git://anongit.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news
> * branch
to trace it to 2.19.0.
===
$ git submodule foreach --quiet git pull origin master --quiet >/dev/null
From git://anongit.gentoo.org/data/gentoo-news
* branchmaster -> FETCH_HEAD
From git://anongit.gentoo.org/data/glep
* branchmaster -> FETCH_HEAD
===
I susp
> BOMPARD CORENTIN p1603631 writes:
>
>> Adding the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
>
> We usually write commit messages with imperative tone, hence "add", not
> "adding".
Fixed.
>> +/*
>> + * W
BOMPARD CORENTIN p1603631 writes:
> Adding the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
We usually write commit messages with imperative tone, hence "add", not
"adding".
> + /*
> + * We want to set the current branch config following th
Adding the --set-upstream option to git pull/fetch
which lets the user set the upstream configuration
for the current branch.
For example a typical use-case like
git clone http://example.com/my-public-fork
git remote add main http://example.com/project-main-repo
git pull main master
Hi Junio,
Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.21.0 to the maint branch.
These updates include l10n of Vietnamese and fixes of l10n of French and
Catalan.
The following changes since commit 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642:
Git 2.21 (2019-02-24 07:55:19 -0800)
are availabl
Greetings,
I have the pull.rebase config enabled for my branch. Sometimes I want
to pull and I know that the pull is going to be a fast-forward.
However, if I run
git pull --ff-only # (with pull.rebase config enabled)
I get the error
error: Cannot pull with rebase: You have unstaged
Jiang Xin writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.21. These updates come
> from nine l10n teams (Bulgarian, Catalan, German, Greek, Spanish, French,
> Italian, Swedish and Simplified Chinese). Jimmy contributed the essential
> translation for Greek and formed a
Hi Junio,
Please pull the following l10n updates for Git 2.21. These updates come
from nine l10n teams (Bulgarian, Catalan, German, Greek, Spanish, French,
Italian, Swedish and Simplified Chinese). Jimmy contributed the essential
translation for Greek and formed a new l10n team. Alessandro made
Maris Razvan writes:
> I checked and the current behaviour of "git pull " is
> to update the remote-tracking branch if required, because, as I have
> seen in the code, it just calls "git fetch".
The thing is, "git fetch origin next" did *NOT* update rem
Hello,
In the "EXAMPLES" section of the git-pull documentation
(https://git-scm.com/docs/git-pull#_examples) there is the following:
"[...] Merge into the current branch the remote branch next:
$ git pull origin next
This leaves a copy of next temporarily in FETCH
s especially in the presence of other untracked
files you *don't* want to stash -- it's not as straightforward.
I would like to propose two changes extending current git actions to handle such
a scenario:
1) `git pull --autostash` (both with and without `--rebase`, the latter of whic
Jiang Xin writes:
> Please pull the following git l10n updates for Git 2.20.0.
>
> The following changes since commit 8a0ba68f6dab2c8b1f297a0d46b710bb9af3237a:
>
> Git 2.20-rc2 (2018-12-01 21:44:56 +0900)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> g...@github.com:git-l10n/git-po.git tags
Hi Junio,
Please pull the following git l10n updates for Git 2.20.0.
The following changes since commit 8a0ba68f6dab2c8b1f297a0d46b710bb9af3237a:
Git 2.20-rc2 (2018-12-01 21:44:56 +0900)
are available in the Git repository at:
g...@github.com:git-l10n/git-po.git tags/l10n-2.20.0-rnd3
for
ce then.
>
> It is up to you if you are interested in such a feel of the level of
> activity. "git fetch" (hence "git pull") would also give you a
> similar "feel", e.g. "the last fetch was ~1200 objects and today's
> is mere ~200, so it seems i
. What does “counting” them means? Should I care?
You vaguely recall that the last time you pushed you saw ~400
objects counted there, so you get the feeling how active you were
since then.
It is up to you if you are interested in such a feel of the level of
activity. "git fetch" (hence &q
On Tue, Nov 27 2018, Will wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2018, at 19:24, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> The different phases taking each one line takes up precious
>> screen real estate, so another approach would be delete the line
>> after one phase is finished, such that you'd only see the currently
>> active
On 27 Nov 2018, at 19:24, Stefan Beller wrote:
> The different phases taking each one line takes up precious
> screen real estate, so another approach would be delete the line
> after one phase is finished, such that you'd only see the currently
> active phase (that can be useful for debugging
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:52 AM Will wrote:
> And even them, do they need this info every time they push?
I agree that we should make the output a bit more user friendly,
which means we'd only want to output relevant data for the user.
The different phases taking each one line takes up precious
I’m far from being a guru, but I consider myself a competent Git user.
Yet, here’s my understanding of the output of one the most-used
commands, `git push`:
Counting objects: 6, done.
No idea what an “object” is. Apparently there’s 6 of them here.
What does “counting” them means? Should I care?
ed, 1 insertion(+)
> create mode 100644 a
> mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git push
> Counting objects: 3, done.
> Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 205 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done.
> Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
> To /home/mmatrosov/test/server
> * [new branch] master -&g
Tommi Vainikainen writes:
> After reading SubmittingPatches I didn't find if I should now send a
> fresh patch with
> changes squashed together or new commits appended after first commit in that
> patch. Patch is updated accordingly as fresh patch.
(just on mechanics, not on the contents of your
0300
Subject: [PATCH] pull: obey fetch.recurseSubmodules when fetching
"git pull" now uses same recurse-submodules config for fetching as "git
fetch" by default if not overridden from command line.
The command line arg --recurse-submodules=no overrides
fetch.recurseSubmodu
ke 24. lokak. 2018 klo 0.57 Stefan Beller (sbel...@google.com) kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
> > I would expect that if git-config has fetch.recurseSubmodules set,
> > also git pull should use this setting, or at least similar option such
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:04:06AM +0300, Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
> I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand,
> which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that
> I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pull
&
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:04 PM Tommi Vainikainen wrote:
>
> I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand,
> which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that
> I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pull
> does
I configured my local git to fetch with recurseSubmodules = on-demand,
which I found the most convenient setting. However then I noticed that
I mostly use git pull actually to fetch from remotes, but git pull
does not utilize any recurseSubmoddules setting now, or at least I
could not find such
The commits are lost always if both users did `git push --force`
How to reproduce:
1. First user: `git push --force`
2. Second user: `git push --force`
3. First user: `git pull -v --rebase`
Here after 3 I expect that git will say that after rebase some commits from
current branch will not be
As you can see I have lost some commits. Thus I wanna an option to be safe
20.09.2018, 17:38, "Junio C Hamano" :
> KES writes:
>
>> PS. for `git push --force` there is alternative: --force-with-lease
>> Is there something similar to --force-with-lease but f
KES writes:
> PS. for `git push --force` there is alternative: --force-with-lease
> Is there something similar to --force-with-lease but for `git pull -v
> --rebase`?
Curious.
For "push", you are competing with the other pushers who want to
update the repository over there
Hi.
TL;DR; Some local commits are lost while `git pull -v --rebase`
[alias]
tree= log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit
changes = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit
--cherry-pick --boundary --left-right
$ git fetch origin
remote
ts: 100% (3/3), 205 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done.
Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
To /home/mmatrosov/test/server
* [new branch] master -> master
mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git pull
Already up-to-date.
mmatrosov@Mikhail-PC:~/test/local$ git pull --rebase=preserve
Rebasing (1/1)
Jiang Xin writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> The following changes since commit 2f743933341f27603550fbf383a34dfcfd38:
>
> Git 2.19-rc1 (2018-08-28 12:01:01 -0700)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.19.0-rnd2
>
> for you to fetch changes up to
Hi Junio,
The following changes since commit 2f743933341f27603550fbf383a34dfcfd38:
Git 2.19-rc1 (2018-08-28 12:01:01 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.19.0-rnd2
for you to fetch changes up to c1ac5258dccbb62438c8df73d728271f7a31
The patch [https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/4aa8b8c82] that
introduced support for pull --rebase= into the Git for Windows project
still allowed the very convenient abbreviation
git pull --rebase=i
which was later lost when it was ported to the builtin git pull, and it was
not
Jeff King writes:
> So I feel like the right answer here is probably this:
>
> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
> index d1c05145a4..5fcaa3d0f8 100644
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -2340,7 +2340,16 @@ int has_uncommitted_changes(int ignore_submodules)
> if (ignore_submod
b.com:git/git.git
> /tmp/git &&
> echo
> >/tmp/git/.git/refs/heads/todo &&
> git -C /tmp/git pull
> )
>
> On this repository e.g. "git log" will print "fatal: bad object HEAD",
> but for s
om:git/git.git
> /tmp/git &&
> echo
> >/tmp/git/.git/refs/heads/todo &&
> git -C /tmp/git pull
> )
It took me a minute to reproduce this. It needs "pull --rebase" if you
don't have that setup
git/refs/heads/todo &&
git -C /tmp/git pull
)
On this repository e.g. "git log" will print "fatal: bad object HEAD",
but for some reason "git pull" makes it this far:
$ git pull
Segmentation fault
The immediate reason is that in run_diff_index()
Jiang Xin writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> The following changes since commit fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c:
>
> l10n: zh_CN: for git v2.18.0 l10n round 1 to 3 (2018-06-18 00:31:45 +0800)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.18.0-rnd3.
Hi Junio,
The following changes since commit fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c:
l10n: zh_CN: for git v2.18.0 l10n round 1 to 3 (2018-06-18 00:31:45 +0800)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.18.0-rnd3.1
for you to fetch changes up to
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 8:41 PM Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Do I need to execute any `git submodule` commands separately even if I
> do `git pull --recurse-submodules`?
Ideally you don't need "git submodule" commands any more, the rest of git
is slowly converging to h
Hello.
I've read [this similar question on
superuser](https://superuser.com/questions/852019/git-submodule-foreach-git-pull-origin-master-vs-git-pull-recursive-submodules)
but I feel my question is more basic:
>From the `git pull` manpage:
git pull runs git fetch with the given pa
The following changes since commit 68372c88794aba15f853542008cda39def768372:
Git 2.18-rc2 (2018-06-13 12:57:07 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.18.0-rnd3
for you to fetch changes up to fd8cb379022fc6f5c6d71d12d10c9388b9f5841c:
l1
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:05:56PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> A better option may be making git-pull accept those options as well. I
> see no reason git-pull should support options that git-fetch does (at
> least most of them).
I sent this as a RFC, mostly to discuss what is the correc
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Rafael Ascensão wrote:
> `git pull` understands some options of `git fetch` which then uses in
> its operation. The documentation of `git pull` doesn't reflect this
> clearly, showing options that are not yet supported (e.g. `--deepen`)
> and omit
`git pull` understands some options of `git fetch` which then uses in
its operation. The documentation of `git pull` doesn't reflect this
clearly, showing options that are not yet supported (e.g. `--deepen`)
and omitting options that are supported (e.g. `--prune`).
Make the document
Jiang Xin writes:
> Would you please pull the following git l10n updates.
>
> The following changes since commit 0afbf6caa5b16dcfa3074982e5b48e27d452dbbb:
Thanks, done.
Hi Junio,
Would you please pull the following git l10n updates.
The following changes since commit 0afbf6caa5b16dcfa3074982e5b48e27d452dbbb:
Git 2.17-rc0 (2018-03-15 15:01:05 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://github.com/git-l10n/git-po tags/l10n-2.17.0-rnd1
for you to f
I can't reproduct my issue, this is my first time, but my colleague
came across this issue several weeks ago.
After I pushed my commit to git server without rejection. I run git
pull --rebase, then I got a forced update, and my last commit is
missing.
I have asked a question on StackOve
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:49:13PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > I think that is doing the right thing for half of the problem. But
> > there's something else funny where we do not include the "upstream"
> > commits from the split history (i.e., we rebase onto nothing,
> > whereas a normal
Hi Peff,
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:33:56AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > So something like this helps:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
> > > index 81c5b42875..71e6cbb388 100644
> > > --- a/git-
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:33:56AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > So something like this helps:
> >
> > diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
> > index 81c5b42875..71e6cbb388 100644
> > --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh
> > +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
> >
Hi Peff,
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:29:55AM +0100, "Marcel 'childNo͡.de' Trautwein"
> wrote:
>
> > shows me a quite different behavior, so solely rebase not seems the
> > full problem BUT `--rebase=preserve` will .. o’man , really, is this
> > intended?
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:29:55AM +0100, "Marcel 'childNo͡.de' Trautwein"
wrote:
> shows me a quite different behavior, so solely rebase not seems the full
> problem
> BUT
> `--rebase=preserve` will .. o’man , really, is this intended?
Yeah, the bug seems to be in --preserve-merges. Here's an
ions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 bar
-bash:/tmp/2608/b.git:$ cd -
/tmp/2608
-bash:/tmp/2608:$ git clone a.git c
Cloning into 'c'...
done.
-bash:/tmp/2608:$ cd c
-bash:/tmp/2608/c:$ ll
total 0
drwxr-xr-x 12 marcel wheel 384B 23 Feb 05:47 .git
-rw-r--r-- 1 marcel whe
e for me today and
> I put
> in s.th. `git pull
> g...@private.gitlab.instance.example.com:aGroup/repository.git`
>
> next … all committed files are zapped and the repository given has
> been checked out in my home directory 🤯👻
>
> what? Shouldn’t this just fail? Why can
working in a subpath of my homedir
(that is a git repository itself, without any changes in worktree or index:
https://bitbucket.org/childnode/marcel/ )
I wanted to clone another repository … but yeah … it’s late for me today and I
put
in s.th. `git pull
g...@private.gitlab.instance.example.com:aGroup
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Julius Musseau wrote:
> I was hoping to concoct a situation where "git pull --rebase" makes a
> mess of things.
It breaks quite easily with some workflows. They are all in the "don't
do that" territory.
Open a long-lived featur
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Julius Musseau wrote:
> Hi, Git Developers,
>
> I'm currently writing a blog post about "git pull --rebase". The
> point of the blog post is to examine scenarios where two people are
> working together on a short-lived feature br
1 - 100 of 584 matches
Mail list logo
