Maybe I'm lacking the distinction regarding what I'm being specific about. In both examples, I'm asking it specifically to rebase in changes from the remote "upstream" and a named branch at that location. I'm giving git the same information, it's just interpreting it differently - and I'm not understanding why. My local branch would have been created from the upstream/feature-branch, and will eventually be merged back into it. Until I'm ready for that, I regularly rebase the work done on upstream/feature-branch so that my local work is always clean and above anything else. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> git-rebase assumes that if you give an explicit upstream then you want >> precisely what you asked for. From git-rebase(1): >> >> If either <upstream> or --root is given on the command line, >> then the default is `--no-fork-point`, otherwise the default is >> `--fork-point`. > > Correct. > > You ask it to rebase the history without guessing by being explicit; > the command guesses when you are not explicit and being lazy ;-). > -- Mike Botsko Lead Dev @ Helion3 Ph: 1-(503)-897-0155 -- 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