Re: Rebasing stgit stacks
- From
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
- Date
- Jan 18, 2007, 19:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070118194208.GJ9761@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <tnxmz4gv8sj.fsf@arm.com>
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 12:06:20PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:30:18AM +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >> I'm all for calling this command "stg rebase". > > > > After all, my current implementation as "pull --to" mostly bypasses > > the fetch, so it probably makes sense to use a new command. > > > > However, "stg rebase <target>" does not sound right. I'm not very > > happy with "stg rebaseto <target>" (or rebase-to) either. > > I think something 'stg rebase <newbase>' sounds OK.
It's just that it sounds more natural to me to give as instruction "do rebase (current stack) to that point" than "do rebase that point", which "rebase <newbase>" would seem to imply.
Best reagards,
-- Yann.