From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Rose Subject: Re: cookbook question Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:08:03 -0500 Message-ID: <47C73ED3.6000704@krose.org> References: <47C704BB.2010707@krose.org> <20080228225838.GA31479@hashpling.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git mailing list To: Charles Bailey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 29 00:08:44 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JUrrm-0005zO-Nl for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:08:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759067AbYB1XIG (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:08:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932166AbYB1XIF (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from kai.krose.org ([140.186.190.96]:46667 "EHLO mail.krose.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932143AbYB1XIF (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from [172.16.25.54] (fw01.cmbrmaks.akamai.com [80.67.64.10]) by mail.krose.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E476A2AEC084; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:08:03 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071229) In-Reply-To: <20080228225838.GA31479@hashpling.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > I presume that origin/common contains changes to the common part of > the config files that you want to apply to both machines. If the two > machines' configs were originally branched from origin/common and then > had there custom changes made and committed, you should just be able > to merge subsequent changes from origin/common and not get conflicts > unless there are genuinely changes to the parts of the configs that > have been modified for the individual machines. I don't see a case for > rebase in your example. > > The rebase just avoids unnecessary merge records. What I really want is my changes placed on top of whatever the common head is at any one time, which by design means I would use rebase. Aside from the cleanliness of the history, I'm not sure there is a real reason to do this. But I like things clean. ;-) Kyle