From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santi_B=E9jar?= Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patches Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:08:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1281592569-740-1-git-send-email-newren@gmail.com> <1281592569-740-3-git-send-email-newren@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, martinvz To: Elijah Newren X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 13 00:08:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OjfxB-0000QW-He for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:08:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760526Ab0HLWIo convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:08:44 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:43704 "EHLO mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753855Ab0HLWIo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:08:44 -0400 Received: by yxg6 with SMTP id 6so627556yxg.19 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.34.70 with SMTP id k6mr797105ibd.25.1281650923205; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.36.6 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Elijah Newren wrot= e: > Hi, > > Thanks for the review and comments! > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Santi B=E9jar wr= ote: > >> All this makes sense. >> >> But can you explain when it happens? One possibility is when you don= 't >> fork from the tracking branch as in: > > That's one possibility. =A0Patch 1/2 in this thread contains testcase= s > for two others. =A0Another possibility is having your patches get > upstream by some alternative route (e.g. pulling your changes to a > third machine, pushing from there, and then going back to your > original machine and trying to pull --rebase). I think this is commit message material. > >> Subject: Difference between pull --rebase and fetch+rebase >> Message-ID: <27059158.post@talk.nabble.com> >> From: martinvz >> >> and this patch should also fix martinvz's issue (I've CC martinvz, c= an >> you test this patch? Thanks). > > Since you've cc'd martinvz, I'll note for his benefit that in the > thread you reference above, you stated, > > "By the way, when Git tries to apply these two commits it should dete= ct > that they are already applied so it should do nothing, isn't it?" > > The answer is no, it won't detect they are already applied, as > explained in the commit message that started the current thread. =A0(= If > git did detect the changes were already applied, this bug would have > been innocuous.) Thanks, you are right. Santi