> From: Thomas Rast
>
> wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> [...snip...]
>
> Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
> earlier:
>
> > > It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
> > > the result, I think. If that were an acceptabl
Thomas Rast writes:
> I still think that the _right_ solution is first redoing the merge on
> its original parents and then seeing how the actual merge differs from
> that.
I think that is what was suggested in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/198316
> Perhaps a new
Am 3/7/2013 9:48, schrieb Thomas Rast:
> wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
> [...snip...]
>
> Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
> earlier:
>
>>> It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
>>> the result, I think. If that were a
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
[...snip...]
Isn't that just a very long-winded way of restating what Junio said
earlier:
> > It was suggested to make it apply the first-parent diff and record
> > the result, I think. If that were an acceptable approach (I didn't
> > think about it
This is how I see what rebase should do:
The simple case for rebase starts from
P---Q---R---S master
\
A---B---C topic
Then "git checkout topic ; git rebase master" will change it to
P---Q---R---S master
5 matches
Mail list logo