From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make 'remote show' distinguish between merged and rebased remote branches Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4991FA18.1040200@xiplink.com> References: <20090210202046.8EBEC3360AC@rincewind> <7v3aemm1po.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 10 23:06:59 2009 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 1LX0kf-0001uu-3W for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:06:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755665AbZBJWFR (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755477AbZBJWFR (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:17 -0500 Received: from smtp152.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.152]:52648 "EHLO smtp152.iad.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754888AbZBJWFQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:16 -0500 Received: from relay5.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay5.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 52D59738949; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by relay5.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 2F0B17388C7; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:15 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) In-Reply-To: <7v3aemm1po.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I sympathize with what you are trying to do but I do not think this is > correct. You will *never* rebase remote on top of your changes; rather > you will replay your changes on top of what the updated remote has. > > It is more like "if you start git pull while on branch rebaser, it will > rebased on top of this branch from the remote". > I'm happy to use more accurate phrasing -- I was just going for a minimal change. How about the following, consistent for both cases: 'git pull' merges branch master with remote branch master 'git pull' rebases branch rebaser on top of remote branch side ? I like the above because the keywords & branch names are in consistent locations, making it easier to parse the output. Marc