On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:16PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > What do you think git rebase -s ours should be considering as "ours"? > If I'm not mistaken, at the moment, "ours" stands for "upstream", which > is kind of confusing... Sort of. It actually works as "what is in the working tree is fine" so it ends up not applying _any_ commits. In other words, git rebase --strategy=ours upstream is equivalent to git reset --hard upstream So I think the current behavior is nonsensical, and I assume nobody uses it. OTOH, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? If you have "ours" mean "always take the rebased content", then aren't you stomping on original commits? You might mean something like "do a regular 3-way merge, and for every textual conflict, choose the rebased content". That at least makes some sense, but I suspect it will produce uncompilable results in most cases. What I am getting at is: what 'ours' should mean in a rebase depends on how it can usefully be used in a workflow. Do you have a workflow in mind? -Peff -- 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
