Hi Philip,
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Johannes Schindelin"
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that some use cases have intermediate repositories that
> > > contain a 'master' branch (it's just a name ;-) that isn't blessed
> > > and golden
From: "Johannes Schindelin"
Hi Philip,
On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: "Johannes Schindelin"
> The point is that fixup! messages are really special, and are always
> intended to be squashed into the referenced commit *before* the latter
> hits `master`.
I think it's here tha
Hi Philip,
On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Johannes Schindelin"
>
> > The point is that fixup! messages are really special, and are always
> > intended to be squashed into the referenced commit *before* the latter
> > hits `master`.
>
> I think it's here that we have the hidd
From: "Johannes Schindelin"
Hi Junio & Philip,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Philip Oakley" writes:
> As I understand this it's implied by design. The issue is that the
> rebase is looking for that named commit within its current rebase
> range, and can't find it, so ignores it
Hi Junio & Philip,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Philip Oakley" writes:
>
> > As I understand this it's implied by design. The issue is that the
> > rebase is looking for that named commit within its current rebase
> > range, and can't find it, so ignores it.
> >
> > There is a s
Hi Robert,
From: "Robert Dailey"
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Perhaps a change like this to "rebase -i":
- The search for "original" when handling "pick fixup! original",
when it does not find "original", could turn it into "reword
fixup! original" without chan
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Perhaps a change like this to "rebase -i":
>
> - The search for "original" when handling "pick fixup! original",
>when it does not find "original", could turn it into "reword
>fixup! original" without changing its position in the ins
"Philip Oakley" writes:
> As I understand this it's implied by design. The issue is that the
> rebase is looking for that named commit within its current rebase
> range, and can't find it, so ignores it.
>
> There is a separate issue that all the fixup! fixup! messages are
> essentially treated a
From: "Robert Dailey"
Suppose I have a branch with 4 commits, in the following order (as you
might see during interactive rebase):
pick 123 Original Change
pick 789 fixup! Original Change
pick 456 Some Other Thing
pick abc fixup! fixup! Original Change
However, let's say the first commit is al
Suppose I have a branch with 4 commits, in the following order (as you
might see during interactive rebase):
pick 123 Original Change
pick 789 fixup! Original Change
pick 456 Some Other Thing
pick abc fixup! fixup! Original Change
However, let's say the first commit is already pushed upstream on
10 matches
Mail list logo
