From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: <474D22DC.1060408@op5.se> References: <200711270622.lAR6MFXQ010010@mi0.bluebottle.com> <20071127150829.GB3853@fieldses.org> <20071127153411.GA11731@fieldses.org> <20071127164243.GE11731@fieldses.org> <20071127170749.GA19136@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Nicolas Pitre , =?UTF-8?B?44KJ44GE44GX44Gq44Gq44GT?= , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 28 14:26:00 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from mail-forward.uio.no ([129.240.10.42]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IxKv7-00041k-9f for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:17:33 +0100 Received: from mail-mx9.uio.no ([129.240.10.39]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IxI5Q-0004ct-8j for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:16:00 +0100 Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by mail-mx9.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IxI4E-0006xT-PE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:15:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753170AbXK1IMV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:12:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753026AbXK1IMV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:12:21 -0500 Received: from mail.op5.se ([193.201.96.20]:53034 "EHLO mail.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751482AbXK1IMU (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:12:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D831F08038; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:12:17 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.op5.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.op5.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rHS4u7mcS8x; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:12:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from nox.op5.se (unknown [192.168.1.20]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE781F08022; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:12:14 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) In-Reply-To: <20071127170749.GA19136@fieldses.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org X-UiO-ClamAV-Virus: No X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.4, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=2.605,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4,UIO_VGER=-3) X-UiO-Scanned: C0A2AF8F4354B36642A8B330266425CB5CC6F3E2 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 209.132.176.167 spam_score: -43 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 32 total 724103 max/h 813 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Archived-At: J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:54:18PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >>> If we really want a fetch+rebase script, OK, but call it something other >>> than pull. >> Why? pull = fetch + merge only because that was the originally envisioned >> way to pull remote changes into your local working tree. However, I do >> not see why we should be married to pull being a fetch and a merge for >> eternity. > > Two responses: > > First, OK, if you want to say "pull" means "fetch something and then > incorporate it somehow into your current branch", that doesn't bother me > quite as much as saying that "pull" always means "fetch + merge", and > that "rebase" is really just a special kind of merge. It's clearly not > a merge. > I beg to differ. The end result is identical to a merge (assuming one never does "git rebase skip", which otoh could be thought of as one way of resolving a merge conflict). It's just history that doesn't turn out the same. git has always been about content, so from that pov, a rebase is exactly the same as a merge. > Second: "fetch+rebase" will really have very different properties from > "fetch+pull". "fetch+merge", no? > It may be possible to make the former behave a little > like the latter in some common cases, but it's going to complicated. True. I don't think octopus rebase needs to be supported, for example. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231