On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 09:43:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Brian Gernhardt <benji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > This makes rebase act a little more like merge when working on the
> > > current branch. This is particularly useful for `git pull --rebase`
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Gernhardt <benji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > ARG! This is what v3 was supposed to be. I should make sure I am sending in
> > > the correct patch.
> >
> > Yeah, I was scratching my head about the discrepancy between the revision
> > comment and the patch in the previous one.
> >
> > Having said that, thanks to updates to git-rebase, rebased_branch@{1} has
> > useful information these days, so I do not see much practical upside, even
> > though I _will_ apply this patch, just for the sake of consistency.
> >
> > We would make it _appear_ rebase and merge are interchangeable even more.
> > But the thing is, I am not convinced if promoting that appearance is
> > necessarily a good thing.
> >
> > You now do not have to say something like:
> >
> > After a 'git pull' you can view 'git diff ORIG_HEAD..' to check
> > what are new, but 'git pull --rebase' is different and you would
> > say 'git diff branch@{1}.." instead.
> >
> > and you can tell the users that ORIG_HEAD can be used in both cases.
>
> And in both cases, you could use HEAD@{1} instead of ORIG_HEAD.
Forget it, I just woke up, I'm writing crap.
Mike
--
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
