Re: rebasing merges
- From
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2008, 07:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <48D8A052.6000101@viscovery.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <2008-09-23-09-30-47+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
Samuel Tardieu schrieb:
Show 23 quoted lines
>>>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes: > > Johannes> i.e. linearized history without merges. > > A few days ago, I had a question in my team quite similar to Stephen > concern. A developer had performed a merge of a complex feature and > was ready to commit it > > --o--o--o--o--X <-- origin > \ \ > A--B--C--D--E <-- master > > when he realized that someone just pushed another change on origin > while he was doing the complicating merge (with lots of conflicts to > resolve). The configuration was then: > > --o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin > \ \ > A--B--C--D--E <-- master > > He would have wanted to have the merge rebased on E and Y instead of E > and X before pushing, without going through all the conflicts > resolution again (he didn't have "rerere" enabled).
If you mean "merge", and you are willing to keep E, then you do another merge to get this history:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\ \ \
A--B--C--D--E--F <-- masterand the previous conflicts will not show up again. But if you do not want E to show up in the history, like this:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\ \
A--B--C--D-----F <-- masterthen you will have to resolve all conflicts again. Of course, you can keep E in a temporary branch, and you can selectively check out files from that tree to safe some work, but whether this is possible depends on the changes that Y introduces.
If you mean "rebase", then you get this after the first rebase:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\
A'--B'--C'--D' <-- masterThen you can rebase again to get this:
--o--o--o--o--X--Y <-- origin
\
A"--B"--C"--D' <-- masterat which time you don't see the old conflicts again.
-- Hannes