From: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:17:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patches
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:
> 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