From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Haberman Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Prepare for non-interactive merge-preserving rebase Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:20:07 -0500 Organization: Exigence Message-ID: <20080927142007.a75a31a0.stephen@exigencecorp.com> References: <48D95836.6040200@op5.se> <20080923162211.d4b15373.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <48DE7386.2080808@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Shawn Pearce To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 27 21:21:31 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KjfM9-0005Wc-IA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:21:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753697AbYI0TUU (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:20:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753593AbYI0TUU (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:20:20 -0400 Received: from smtp142.sat.emailsrvr.com ([66.216.121.142]:56362 "EHLO smtp142.sat.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753531AbYI0TUT (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:20:19 -0400 Received: from relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5A03A27B101; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:20:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: stephen-AT-exigencecorp.com) with ESMTP id BCCA3277A1F; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:20:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <48DE7386.2080808@op5.se> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0beta3 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > Stephen, are you using this in production? Kind of--I have not distributed a patched version of pull. But I have written test cases on our side and manually executing `GIT_EDITOR=: git rebase -i -p` works very well. Past occurrences aside, no one has needed to rebase a local merge yet. > How's it turning out? I think it's great, but the primary problem will be getting devs to actually remember to use it. E.g. I don't think they will type out: git pull --rebase --preserve-rebase Every time they pull. And they definitely don't do our current hack: git fetch GIT_EDITOR=: git rebase -i -p I do have a wrapper shell script for people to use, but it hasn't seen wide adoption yet. We have a draconian hook script that tries to detect merges that should have been rebases and reject them, but it's disabled for tweaking right now--when it gets turned back on, I think more people will use the script. In the long term, having "branch.name.preservemerges" and "branch.autosetuppreservemerges" config options to parallel the "branch.name.rebase" option and get us back to just "git pull" would be great. I've been meaning to submit patches for these two config options--I figure I can hunt down how "branch.name.rebase" works and do the appropriate copy/paste, but I haven't dedicated any time to it yet. Thanks, Stephen