Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patches
- From
- Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
- Date
- Aug 12, 2010, 23:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTim6Tg7fNqxFYGU=bxQAn24ipkNaiENU5waCyQ4y@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTikt6kRZRGW5Y=0qFf41P2HVLe97qGH=5ya5gcbw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the review and comments! >> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net> wrote: >> <snip> >>> All this makes sense. >>> >>> But can you explain when it happens? One possibility is when you don't >>> fork from the tracking branch as in: >> >> That's one possibility. Patch 1/2 in this thread contains testcases >> for two others. Another possibility is having your patches get >> upstream by some alternative route (e.g. pulling your changes to a >> third machine, pushing from there, and then going back to your >> original machine and trying to pull --rebase). > > I think this is commit message material.
I just want to add one thing, thanks for your great commit message. Although the patch itself if 7 lines it is fantastic to have a commit message explaining all the historical context and this level of detail.
Thanks, Santi