Re: Should "pull --rebase" try to be a little cleverer?

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > > last night an idea hit me: if I "git pull --rebase blabla master", it 
> > > could be that "blabla" decided to rebase "master" already, and ATM 
> > > this would lead to quite a few conflicts, since commits that were not 
> > > mine were rewritten.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > > However, if we already have refs/remotes/blabla/master, we could DWIM 
> > > the --rebase call to
> > > 
> > > 	git rebase --onto FETCH_HEAD refs/remotes/blabla/master
> > 
> > I was believing this was already the case.  Mind you, I never verified 
> > it.
> > 
> > I think the best is really to have the equivalent of:
> > 
> > 	git fetch blabla/master
> > 	git rebase --onto blabla/master blabla/master@{1} HEAD
> 
> Not exactly... what would you do with this:
> 
> 	git pull --rebase git://git.kernel.org/... master
> 
> Hm?
> 
> So I think that _only_ in the case that a remote ref is updated, _and_ 
> that there is already one, can we do the DWIMery.