From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
To: Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>
Cc: "Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>,
"Git Mailing List" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git pull --rebase and losing commits
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:12:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200911031112.25064.trast@student.ethz.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911030757400.15633@ds9.cixit.se>
Peter Krefting wrote:
> Thomas Rast:
>
> > Not very surprising if you use the 'ours' strategy, which doesn't merge at
> > all but instead takes the 'ours' side (IIRC that's the upstream for a
> > rebase, but I always have these mixed up).
>
> Sounds like it should be called "theirs", then. Or the documentation should
> be clarify.
The problem isn't that ours and theirs are swapped, it's that in a
rebase, the 'ours' side is the upstream and 'theirs' is the commit you
are currently rebasing. This makes sort of sense, because you are
rebuilding your commit on top of the upstream (or actually, the so-far
rebuilt commits, starting with the upstream), so the merge happens
"on" the upstream.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-03 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-02 12:26 git pull --rebase and losing commits Peter Krefting
2009-11-02 15:04 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-02 21:34 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-11-02 15:10 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-11-03 7:01 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-03 9:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-03 10:12 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-11 14:03 ` [PATCH] Clarify documentation on the "ours" merge strategy Peter Krefting
2009-11-11 15:13 ` Baz
2009-11-11 20:35 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-11 20:54 ` Baz
2009-11-11 21:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-11 21:30 ` [PATCH] " Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-11-11 23:37 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-12 7:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-12 9:41 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-14 2:12 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-11-15 9:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 8:20 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-12 9:55 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 0/3] Document and refuse rebase -s ours Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: clarify 'ours' merge strategy Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase docs: clarify --merge and --strategy Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-15 21:11 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: refuse to rebase with -s ours Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:39 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-11-15 18:44 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-16 12:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-16 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 21:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-16 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 22:04 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-11-16 23:04 ` A Large Angry SCM
2009-11-15 21:04 ` [PATCH 0/3] Document and refuse rebase " Junio C Hamano
2009-11-15 21:13 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-03 10:12 ` Thomas Rast [this message]
2009-11-03 4:27 ` git pull --rebase and losing commits Randal L. Schwartz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200911031112.25064.trast@student.ethz.ch \
--to=trast@student.ethz.ch \
--cc=B.Steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@softwolves.pp.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).