Samuel Tardieu schrieb:
>>>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Johannes> i.e. linearized history without merges.
>
> A few days ago, I had a question in my team quite similar to Stephen
> concern. A developer had performed a merge of a complex feature and
> was ready to commit it
>
> --o--o--o--o--X <-- origin
> \ \
> A--B--C--D--E <-- master
>
> when he realized that someone just pushed another change on origin
> while he was doing the complicating merge (with lots of conflicts to
> resolve). The configuration was then:
>
> --o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
> \ \
> A--B--C--D--E <-- master
>
> He would have wanted to have the merge rebased on E and Y instead of E
> and X before pushing, without going through all the conflicts
> resolution again (he didn't have "rerere" enabled).
If you mean "merge", and you are willing to keep E, then you do another
merge to get this history:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\ \ \
A--B--C--D--E--F <-- master
and the previous conflicts will not show up again. But if you do not want
E to show up in the history, like this:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\ \
A--B--C--D-----F <-- master
then you will have to resolve all conflicts again. Of course, you can keep
E in a temporary branch, and you can selectively check out files from
that tree to safe some work, but whether this is possible depends on the
changes that Y introduces.
If you mean "rebase", then you get this after the first rebase:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\
A'--B'--C'--D' <-- master
Then you can rebase again to get this:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\
A"--B"--C"--D' <-- master
at which time you don't see the old conflicts again.
-- Hannes
--
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
