Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This option will be considered at a lower priority than > branch.<name>.rebase, i.e. we could set pull.rebase=true and > branch.<name>.rebase=false and the latter configuration option would > win. > > Reviewed-by: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Fernando Vezzosi <buccia@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Eric Herman <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> I see many reviewed-by lines, but what kind of review did this patch have, exactly? It seem to break its own test (branch.to-rebase.rebase should override pull.rebase). I think I've queued most (if not all) of the patches in flight except for Ram's sequencer reroll to 'pu' and pu^ passes the test but the tip of pu does not due to this topic. Thanks for other topics from the Amsterdam together, by the way. I did not comment on them individually but they looked mostly reasonable from a quick glance. -- 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