Re: pull into dirty working tree
- From
Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2007, 20:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <86odjjziek.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070613204711.GC3412@steel.home>
>>>>> "Alex" == Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
Alex> No, it wont. What files are you going to add?
Whatever you are working on. Whatever you want tracked. It's a commit. I'm not sure why you're having trouble following me. What did I leave out?
>> git-rebase *will* do the merge. It must. :)
Alex> It won't merge anything which isn't known to git.
And that's irrelevant, because my first step *did* a commit so they are *known* to git.
Alex> Now, I come to think Alex> about it, no existing merge method will help you here (and very likely Alex> it shouldn't).
Yes, it should. You're merging your changes onto the upstream. This happens dozens of times a day with git repos all over the world. :)
Alex> It is actually much simplier doing things right: all this stashing Alex> people keep talking about.
Yes, and that's what I said too.
-- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!