Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/20] Refactor rebase

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

 



Heya,

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 20:16, Martin von Zweigbergk
<martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> They touch the same code as 729ec9e (rebase --abort: do not update
> branch ref), 7baf9c4 (rebase: support --verify) and 92c62a3 (Porcelain
> scripts: Rewrite cryptic "needs update" error message). However, it is
> only 7baf9c4 that would have to be more or less redone if I did not
> base the patch set on it. Do I understand correctly that I should
> therefore have based them directly off of 7baf9c4?

Yes, I think that'd be preferable, unless Junio disagrees?

> I suppose it is not worth resending this time. Tell me if you think
> otherwise.

Yeah, you can just wait to rebase with the next iteration.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier
--
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]