wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
[...snip...]
Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
earlier:
It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
the result, I think. If that were an acceptable approach (I didn't
think about it
Am 3/7/2013 9:48, schrieb Thomas Rast:
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
[...snip...]
Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
earlier:
It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
the result, I think. If that were an
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes:
I still think that the _right_ solution is first redoing the merge on
its original parents and then seeing how the actual merge differs from
that.
I think that is what was suggested in
From: Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
[...snip...]
Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
earlier:
It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
the result, I think. If that were an
This is how I see what rebase should do:
The simple case for rebase starts from
P---Q---R---S master
\
A---B---C topic
Then git checkout topic ; git rebase master will change it to
P---Q---R---S master
5 matches
Mail list logo