Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:49 PM
On 1/23/10 11:10 PM, "Mark Polesky" <[email protected]> wrote:
I wrote a little shell script to rebase all my local git
branches at once.
So does the script rebase all branches in a repository? I'm sure
I wouldn't
like that; I have some branches that are used to keep "old"
history around.
I realize that I could rebase them, then go back the previous
commit to keep
it in the old state. But I think I'd prefer to just manage my own
rebasing.
My view exactly
I don't try to keep all of my branches up to date. I manage them
individually.
Ditto. There are usually quite a few dead branches
that seem to be going nowhere, but I keep them around
just in case I get new inspiration :(
And then when I'm ready to merge back in, I'll typically do a
git rebase -I to get down to a single commit that varies from the
branch
point, then I cherry-pick that commit to master.
Again ditto, or merge if cherry-pick isn't necessary
This works nicely for
me because I want to have different branches for each issue to
work with
Rietveld, but I like to push from master.
We're exactly in agreement!
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
