I'm not sure this is even a sensible question.... I have a whole bunch of customer branches with all manner of local tweaks and modifications. I also have a stable branch with all my security patches and bug fixes. They do share common ancestry. I now want to update all my customer branches with the latest fixes and patches. Naively, I would just check out each branch and merge the stable branch - job done. However, is it sensible to ask if there is a way to say that the stable branch is more important if there are conflicts. Or should I be using rebase instead (which I still don't really understand). I'm trying to reduce my workload as there are loads of branches to do. Cheers :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html