From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: Why the default action for pull is merge, but not rebase? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:57:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20101027165723.GC11069@burratino> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Eugene Sajine X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 27 18:57:40 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PB9Jg-00035g-9D for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:57:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752046Ab0J0Q5a (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:57:30 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:60852 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751403Ab0J0Q53 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:57:29 -0400 Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so1069826iwn.19 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SwJGQkd1qRMkUftuhGK3ZVVmjXgXJpM/5ZQ74GTHifc=; b=udTn2gzAXnwddSBPGEozvmbe7jM2b+VQozHxy256iSgF2o7o+tNI9b9+YyIiHqYbx6 Qs2jNYVHVkFrzm/T9ETYsV/dJGnYeIBRNZsshfZ/6rUWr/fDEa1/cyCzX9iI8AvzqX2P Vn4OrTM18kFlgJpLlabB4eLkrxyVWvaA8cT24= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=SMTNOb25agq9omyfv4GyX7NO0f1/iXoqRhH/goolXkmxD2mmTwrUvR/JQaUK12z8ZT UX7/RxewG6T3LWR26tAzDaSamQadbpaVFYtgR5DZ2LNHYKqwgxaHiCg/C6jnvFl/25bw KL3kM+vtCiTE4rOrNb27k8/jsXUDhEJgf6HSc= Received: by 10.231.173.138 with SMTP id p10mr642994ibz.143.1288198649350; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from burratino (adsl-68-255-106-176.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net [68.255.106.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm11612796ibi.20.2010.10.27.09.57.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eugene Sajine wrote: > So, why not to rebase? An interesting question. Rebasing results in untested commits. If this is a patch series for submission, that's fine, because you will be extensively testing each patch anyway or indicating to reviewers that that needs to be done (right?). But if it's a long-lived branch then such repeated testing work can be a serious hassle. https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#What_is_the_difference_between_a_merge_and_a_rebase.3F A public branch that is regularly rebased is hard to follow ("git log foo@{1}..foo") and build on. http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-rebase.html#_recovering_from_upstream_rebase Code consumers often want clean history, but that really means (a) clean and (b) history. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.dri.devel/34739/focus=34744 Hope that helps.