Re: tracking branch for a rebase

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 5, 2009, 14:28 UTC
Message-ID: <20090905142841.GB15631@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090905140127.GA29037@atjola.homenet>

On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:01:27PM +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > And by automating the shorthand we reduce the chance of errors. For
> > example, I usually base my topic branches from origin/master. But the
> > other day I happened to be building a new branch, jk/date, off of
> > lt/approxidate, salvaged from origin/pu. I did "git rebase -i
> > origin/master" and accidentally rewrote the early part of
> > lt/approxidate.
> 
> Hm, I'd prefer a shorthand for "upstream for this branch", instead of
> magic defaults.

The more I think about, the more I think that is the right solution. Because magic defaults for "rebase -i" don't help when you want to do "gitk $UPSTREAM..".

The previous discussion on the topic seems to be here:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/113666

And apparently you and I both participated in the discussion, which I totally forgot about.

Looks like the discussion ended with people liking the idea but not knowing what the specifier should look like. Maybe tightening the ref syntax a bit to allow more extensible "special" refs is a good v1.7.0 topic? I dunno.

> > That wouldn't help me, because you can't "pull -i". :)
> 
> I probably shouldn't tell anyone, as it's a crude hack, but "git pull
> --rebase -s -i" does the trick... *hides*

OK, that's just sick. :)

-Peff