Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Santi Béjar <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the review and comments!
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Santi Béjar <santi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> 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.  Patch 1/2 in this thread contains testcases
>> for two others.  Another 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.

I just want to add one thing, thanks for your great commit message.
Although the patch itself if 7 lines it is fantastic to have a commit
message explaining all the historical context and this level of
detail.

Thanks,
Santi
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]