Re: stg pull/rebase

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2008, 19:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20080611190732.GA23670@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0806111000s4faecfa8o4e4042245c6ff2ba@mail.gmail.com>

On 2008-06-11 18:00:25 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> 2008/6/11 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>:
>
> > On 2008-06-10 16:43:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > 2008/6/10 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>:
> > >
> > > > But what exactly is "rebasecmd" useful for, when you already
> > > > have "fetchcmd" and a built-in rebase?
> > >
> > > In case the built-in rebase is not enough. Can you use "git svn
> > > fetch" followed by plain "git rebase"? There are some comments
> > > in git-svn.txt that recommend to use "git svn rebase" to
> > > preserve linear history.
> >
> > You most definitely can. I've been doing so daily for more than a
> > year:
> >
> >  $ git svn fetch -q
> >  $ stg rebase -m svn/branch
>
> Maybe, I haven't tried (I just followed the git-svn documentation).
> Is the imported svn history linear?

Yes, it's linear. (Can git-svn do anything else?)

> If it works, I no longer have a need for a rebasecmd option.

As I said, it works for me. And I can't really think of a case where it wouldn't work. Try it and see!

Show 8 quoted lines

> > And of course,
> >
> >  stg rebase [committish]
> >
> >    The same as "stg pull --no-fetch --rebase [committish]"; that
> >    is, no fetch, just rebase.
>
> I'm OK, as long as we keep a "rebase" alias :-)

I guess you and Jakub have me cornered here. ;-)

Show 10 quoted lines

> > > See my interpretation of the word "pull". I can change my mind,
> > > no problem, but it would be interesting to see what a native
> > > English speaker says (though you are probably closer to English
> > > than me :-)).
> >
> > Mph, I don't know about me being "closer". I thought you were the
> > one living in the UK? ;-)
>
> I was more thinking about the native language roots (Germanic vs
> Latin in my case, I've only lived in the UK for 7 years) :-)

English is too far from Swedish in this case. My guideline in these matters is my overconfidence in my own English skills. (And in this particular case, having followed a mailing list where every month a new unsuspecting user is taught that pull = fetch + merge.)

Show 6 quoted lines

> > Regardless, I don't think we're actually in disagreement -- as I
> > understand it, we both think that pull = fetch + integrate. And
> > "rebase" is one possible value of "integrate".
>
> I think the disagreement is that I consider "fetch" in the above
> equality to be mandatory.

Well, I too consider "pull" to imply "fetch", so I don't see a disagreement. I only called it "stg pull --no-fetch" instead of "stg integrate" or whatever because (1) users will have an easier time finding it that way, and (2) we have too many stg subcommands already.

> But I think your proposal is OK.

Yay!

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle