From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sven Verdoolaege Subject: Re: rebase problems Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:24:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20051128202428.GA8383MdfPADPa@greensroom.kotnet.org> References: <20051128145814.GW8383MdfPADPa@greensroom.kotnet.org> <7v4q5wttib.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Reply-To: skimo@liacs.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 28 21:26:41 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EgpYB-0006fd-Md for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:24:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932232AbVK1UYd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:24:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932236AbVK1UYd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:24:33 -0500 Received: from psmtp02.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.11]:14054 "EHLO psmtp02.wxs.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932232AbVK1UYc (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:24:32 -0500 Received: from greensroom.kotnet.org (ip54515aaa.direct-adsl.nl [84.81.90.170]) by psmtp02.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with SMTP id <0IQO00JXRM0T0Z@psmtp02.wxs.nl> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:24:29 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 29689 invoked by uid 500); Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:24:29 +0000 In-reply-to: <7v4q5wttib.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> To: Junio C Hamano Mail-followup-to: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:19:40PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The output seems very inconsistent I am not sure why the first > message says "Applying HEAD~2", not HEAD~6. What patches do > you see in .dotest/ directory, and are they numbered in the > right order? HEAD~6 should be numbered 0001 and that should be > the first one that was applied. Ah! It seems .dotest still contained some stuff from a previous (expectedly) failed rebase. Rebase worked after rm -rf'ing .dotest Maybe rebase should clean up .dotest or at least warn about an existing .dotest ? Thanks, skimo