From: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:24:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/20] Refactor rebase
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:
> 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