Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 
> > There's a very brief mention of this:
> > 
> > 	"As with git-fetch, git-push will complain if this does not
> > 	result in a <<fast-forwards,fast forward>>.  Normally this is a
> > 	sign of something wrong.  However, if you are sure you know what
> > 	you're doing, you may force git-push to perform the update
> > 	anyway by preceding the branch name by a plus sign:
> 
> ... or use "git push -f" (is it mentioned in the manual?)
> 
> > But it'd probably be better to have a separate section.  That makes it
> > possible to say a little more, and also gets a section called "what to
> > do when a push fails" into the table of contents.
> > 
> > (Though that's a little vague--push can also fail just because you
> > mispell the url or something.  A more precise reference to the
> > particular error might be better, but we'll have to agree on the error
> > message first....)
> > 
> > Anyway, here's a first draft.
> 
> I think we should devote a section of the manual to the "rebase" 
> workflow compared to the "merge" workflow.

> One of the public Git repo 
> I currently maintain is constantly rebased, and I've provided a quick 
> Git update cheat sheet along with its announcement for that case:
> 
>   http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2007-November/043147.html

> 
> ----- >8
> 
> Rebase vs Merge
> ---------------
> 
> Merge and rebase may look like they are doing the same thing, but they act 
> very differently on the repository. Merging basically takes all the 
> changes in the remote branch and mix them with your local branch. 
> For example, if you create a branch "mywork" from the orion/core branch, 
> you will end up with something that looks like this:
> 
> 	a--b--c <-- orion/master
> 	       \
> 	        A--B--C <-- mywork 
> 
> After a fetch, the remote branch might have advanced in parallel to
> local changes as follows:
> 
> 	a--b--c--d--e--f <-- orion/master
> 	       \
> 	        A--B--C <-- mywork 
> 
> If you later do a 'git merge orion/master', your history will look like
> this, where 'M' is a merge commit:
> 
> 	a--b--c--d--e--f <-- orion/master
> 	       \        \
> 	        A--B--C--M <-- mywork
> 
> A rebase, on the other hand, takes all your changes and reapplies them to 
> the current state of the specified branch, and assign the result to the 
> currently checked out branch. With the same example, if you were to do a 
> 'git rebase orion/master', you would get something like this:
> 
> 	a--b--c--d--e--f <-- orion/master
> 	                \
> 	                 A'--B'--C' <-- mywork
> 
> Rebase does what the name implies and creates a new baseline for your 
> branch. The benefit of this is that you end up with a cleaner history log,
> especially if you have to update with the remote branch often, in both
> your repository and in upstream repositories that gets updated from you.  
> 
> 
> Tracking a rebased remote branch
> --------------------------------
> 
> Let's suppose that the remote branch you're tracking is itself subject
> to be rebased.  Before performing a fetch to update that remote branch,
> your history might look like the previous example:
> 
> 	a--b--c--d--e--f <-- orion/master
> 	                \
> 	                 A'--B'--C' <-- mywork
> 
> If the remote branch had some commit replaced, or was rebased on a
> different commit (or both), then things could look like this after a
> fetch:
> 
> 	a---b---c'--d'--e'--f'--g <-- orion/master
> 	     \
> 	      c---d---e---f <-- orion/master@{1}
> 	                   \
> 	                    A---B---C <-- mywork
> 
> In this example, commits c, d, e and f are not present anymore in the
> remote repository.  They are still reachable from your "mywork" local
> branch though.  The "orion/master@{1}" is the notation used to refer to the
> previous value (before the fetch) of "orion/master".
> 
> If you were to use 'git merge' to bring the new commits (c', d', e', f'
> and g) into your local branch, that wouldn't get rid of the commits that
> they are meant to replace, and is likely to cause a major merge conflict.
> 
> The only option in that case is to rebase your work.  Yet there is a twist
> because 'rebase' moves every commit reachable from the current branch on
> top of the specified branch by default, including those c-d-e-f commits.
> So the --onto argument to 'git rebase' must be used to skip over those
> unwanted commits as follows:
> 
> 	git rebase --onto orion/master orion/master@{1} mywork
> 
> This means to rebase commits between orion/master@{1} and mywork on top of
> orion/master and assing mywork to the result.  The git-rebase man page
> provides more examples and a detailed explanation of how 'rebase' works
> which is worth a read.
> 
> NOte: the orion Git repository is indeed rebased often.  So you'll have
> to use this rebase invokation when fetching updates from it.