"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes: >> This however is backwards, no? The history on 'origin/master' may >> not be up-to-date in the sense that if you run 'git fetch' you might >> get more, but it absolutely is up-to-date in the sense that it shows >> what the origin has to the best of your repository's current >> knowledge. > > I still think that the user/reader shouldn't be creating patches based > on wherever someone else had got to, rather it should just be patches > from their own feature branch. You forked your topic branch off of the shared project history aka origin/master and built some. You may have sent some patches off of your previous work to the upstream, and origin/master may or may not have applied some of them since your topic forked from it. The patches you are sending out is from your own topic branch. You may be cooking multiple topics, and your local 'master' branch, which you never push back to 'origin/master', may contain any of these branches. You do not fork off a new topic out of there. Best case, you would fork from 'origin/master'; a bit worse case, you have to fork from another of your topic branch that your new topic has to depend on. Nowhere I am assuming that "the reader is creating paches based on wherever someone else had got to". Sorry, but I have no idea what you are complaining about. > However the rest of your argument still > stands with regard to accidental/unexpected conflicts with other > upstream work, and the reader should ensure they are already up to > date - maybe it needs a comment line to state that. Sorry, but I am not sure how much you understood what I wrote. The primary reason why 'origin' in the example should be replaced with 'origin/master' is because that is the literal adjustment from the pre-separate-remote world order to today's world order. The local branch 'origin' (more specifically, 'refs/heads/origin') used to be what we used to keep track of 'master' of the upstream, which we use 'refs/remotes/origin/master' these days. Side note: DWIMming origin to remotes/origin/HEAD to remotes/origin/master was invented to keep supporting this "'origin' keeps track of the default upstream" convention when we transitioned from the old world order to separate-remote layout. And the reason why 'origin' should not be replaced with 'master' is because your 'master' may already have patches from the topic you are working on, i.e. in your current branch, that the upstream does not yet have. Running "git format-patch origin/master" will show what needs to be accepted by the upstream from you to reproduce your work in full; if you run "git format-patch master", it may miss some parts that you already have in your local 'master' but not yet in the upstream. I never talked about conflicts, and I still think that it is completely outside the scope of these examples. Avoidance of conflicts with the work that is already commited to your upstream since you forked is the job for "rebase", not "format-patch". The reason why it is wrong to replace 'origin' in that text with 'master' does not have anything to do with conflict avoidance. Puzzled... -- 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