From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Moynihan Subject: Re: Rebasing Multiple branches at once... Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:48:11 +0100 Message-ID: <48F7542B.1050909@calicojack.co.uk> References: <48F730D0.9040008@calicojack.co.uk> <20081016135908.GI536@genesis.frugalware.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Vajna X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 16 16:50:57 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 1KqUAb-0000Da-4H for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:49:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752306AbYJPOsd (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:48:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753434AbYJPOsc (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:48:32 -0400 Received: from storm.bpweb.net ([83.223.106.8]:33481 "EHLO storm.bpweb.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752270AbYJPOsc (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:48:32 -0400 Received: from lechuck.local (host-77-100-223-163.static.telewest.net [77.100.223.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by storm.bpweb.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m9GEmH43020935; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:48:22 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) In-Reply-To: <20081016135908.GI536@genesis.frugalware.org> X-BpTo: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Rick Moynihan wrote: >> I have a master branch, a dev branch and a number of feature branches from >> dev. And I was wondering if there was an easy way to rebase dev and all of >> it's sub-branches onto master. > > In general this is considered harmful. Why do you rebase your branch > from time to time? For example in git.git, topic branches are based on > master, then merged to master when they are ready, but they are never > rebased. Yes, but my understanding is that it's only harmful if you publish the branch (or dependent branches) which are being rebased. So rebasing is very bad in these circumstances, but I fail to see why it's bad if these branches are kept private. R.