Re: Effective difference between git-rebase and git-resolve

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mar 25, 2006, 06:08 UTC
Message-ID: <7v64m3ys3a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603242014160.15714@g5.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> As to rebase, it often is very nice, but on the other hand, it leaves 
> things in a total mess when it fails, which is a pity. Maybe there's a 
> nice way to just continue, but I end up just doing a
>
> 	git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD
>
> to undo the failed rebase.
>
> Junio, is there some magic to restart a rebase after you've fixed up the 
> conflicts?

The modern rebase is essentially git-format-patch piped to git-am (with -3 flag to allow falling back to three-way merge), and all the familiar "the patch did not apply -- what now?" techniques can be employed.

Since the pre-image blobs recorded in the intermediate format-patch output by definition exist in your repository, it always falls back to three-way merge when the patch does not apply cleanly. Then you can resolve and say "git am --resolved" to continue.