Richard Hansen wrote: > On 2014-05-04 17:13, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Richard Hansen wrote: > >> On 2014-05-04 06:17, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >>> Richard Hansen wrote: > >>>> On 2014-05-03 23:08, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >>>>> It is the only solution that has been proposed. > >>>> > >>>> It's not the only proposal -- I proposed a few alternatives in my > >>>> earlier email (though not in the form of code), and others have too. In > >>>> particular: > >>>> > >>>> * create a new 'git integrate' command/alias that behaves like 'git > >>>> pull --no-ff' > >>> > >>> Yeah but that's for a different issue altogheter. I doesn't solve the > >>> problems in 1. nor 2. nor 3. > >> > >> 'git integrate' would handle usage cases #2 (update a published branch > >> to its "parent" branch) and #3 (integrate a completed task into the main > >> line of development), > > > > But these cases are completely different. One should reverse the > > parents, the other one not. > > No -- for both #2 and #3 I want the remote branch to be merged into the > local branch. I didn't mean #2 and #3, I meant (#1) vs. (#2, #3). -- Felipe Contreras -- 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