Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/20] Refactor rebase
- From
Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 27, 2010, 01:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTi=UbW5r3zY6j=erA7RzDWLYEe=z84=Qt+QarVCp@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011261954350.17721@debian>
Heya,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 20:16, Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> They touch the same code as 729ec9e (rebase --abort: do not update > branch ref), 7baf9c4 (rebase: support --verify) and 92c62a3 (Porcelain > scripts: Rewrite cryptic "needs update" error message). However, it is > only 7baf9c4 that would have to be more or less redone if I did not > base the patch set on it. Do I understand correctly that I should > therefore have based them directly off of 7baf9c4?
Yes, I think that'd be preferable, unless Junio disagrees?
> I suppose it is not worth resending this time. Tell me if you think > otherwise.
Yeah, you can just wait to rebase with the next iteration.
-- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier