From: "Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>,
Pete Wyckoff <pw@padd.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tracking branch for a rebase
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:01:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090905140127.GA29037@atjola.homenet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090905061250.GA29863@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On 2009.09.05 02:12:50 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:59:49PM +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
>
> > "git pull --rebase" is not the same as:
> > "git fetch origin && git rebase origin/foo", but:
> >
> > git fetch origin && git rebase --onto origin/foo $reflog_merge_base
> >
> > Where $reflog_merge_base is the first merge base is found between the
> > current branch head, and the reflog entries for origin/foo.
>
> Thanks, I didn't know about the trick (not being, as I mentioned, a pull
> --rebase user). I can see arguments for or against a rebase-default
> using that feature. On one hand, it simplifies the explanation for
> people going between "pull --rebase" and "fetch && rebase". And I think
> it should generally Do What You Mean in the case that upstream hasn't
> rebased. Are there cases you know of where it will do the wrong thing?
>
> I don't know if people would be confused that "git rebase" does not
> exactly default to "git rebase $upstream", which is at least easy to
> explain.
For me, the confusion would arise from the fact that "git rebase"
(without args) would seem like a "pull --rebase" without the fetch, but
isn't. And to reducing the difference to just the fetch would require a
quite change in bahaviour.
Currently, when branch.<name>.merge is set:
"git rebase <upstream>" ==> Can't really be done with "pull --rebase"
"git pull --rebase [...]" ==> Can't be done with "rebase" alone.
Currently, "pull" is a convenience thing, and thus may do more magic,
while "rebase" is dumb, and needs arguments. Starting to add _different_
magic to rebase seems wrong to me.
> And by automating the shorthand we reduce the chance of errors. For
> example, I usually base my topic branches from origin/master. But the
> other day I happened to be building a new branch, jk/date, off of
> lt/approxidate, salvaged from origin/pu. I did "git rebase -i
> origin/master" and accidentally rewrote the early part of
> lt/approxidate.
Hm, I'd prefer a shorthand for "upstream for this branch", instead of
magic defaults.
> > Now, basically "git svn rebase" is pretty much git-svn's "pull". Maybe
> > its idea could be taken, so we get "git pull --local" to just skip the
> > fetch part, but keep "git rebase" and "git merge" 'dumb', requiring
> > explicit arguments.
>
> That wouldn't help me, because you can't "pull -i". :)
I probably shouldn't tell anyone, as it's a crude hack, but "git pull
--rebase -s -i" does the trick... *hides*
Björn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-05 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-04 13:54 tracking branch for a rebase Pete Wyckoff
2009-09-04 14:31 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-04 18:18 ` Jeff King
2009-09-04 18:59 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-09-05 6:12 ` Jeff King
2009-09-05 14:01 ` Björn Steinbrink [this message]
2009-09-05 14:28 ` Jeff King
2009-09-07 5:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-07 8:14 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-07 8:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-07 8:44 ` Jeff King
2009-09-07 9:06 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-07 8:43 ` Jeff King
2009-09-07 9:29 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-07 9:53 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-08 23:17 ` Julian Phillips
2009-09-09 10:45 ` Jeff King
2009-09-10 6:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-10 7:47 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 9:36 ` [PATCH] Introduce <branch>@{tracked} as shortcut to the tracked branch Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 9:44 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-10 10:14 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 10:18 ` Johan Herland
2009-09-10 10:59 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-10 12:29 ` Johan Herland
2009-09-10 13:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 14:17 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-09-10 11:11 ` Jeff King
2009-09-10 18:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-10-02 14:54 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-09-10 14:16 ` Jeff King
2009-09-10 14:26 ` Jeff King
2009-09-10 15:24 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 15:25 ` [PATCH v2] Introduce <branch>@{upstream} " Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 15:55 ` Jeff King
2009-09-10 16:18 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-10 15:22 ` [PATCH] Introduce <branch>@{tracked} " Johannes Schindelin
2009-09-11 4:54 ` tracking branch for a rebase Junio C Hamano
2009-09-05 17:59 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090905140127.GA29037@atjola.homenet \
--to=b.steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=git@drmicha.warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=pw@padd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).