On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 19:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Right at the moment, I maintain a <branch> and a <branch>-base and > > simply cherry pick the commits between the two to do the right thing > > when I know my volatile base has changed. It would be very helpful to > > have a version of rebase that new my base had been rebased. > > Hey, I know, you could use.. drumroll.. > > "git rebase" > > I know that's a big leap of faith, to use git rebase for rebasing, but > there you have it. Us git people are kind of odd that way. > > IOW, if you know the old broken base, and the new base, just do > > git rebase --onto newbase oldbase > > and it should do exactly that (basically lots of automated cherry-picks). OK, smarty-pants ... that works nicely, thanks! I'm used to maintaining <branch> and <branch>-base, so this probably suits my workflow better than getting the information from the reflog. It wasn't clear from the git rebase man page that it would work like that. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
