git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joshua Jensen <jjensen@workspacewhiz.com>
To: Dave Olszewski <cxreg@pobox.com>
Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git pull --rebase differs in behavior from git fetch + git rebase
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:48:48 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C77DE60.6020809@workspacewhiz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008270124450.20874@narbuckle.genericorp.net>

  ----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Olszewski
Date: 8/27/2010 2:27 AM
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Joshua Jensen wrote:
>
>> I have a case where 'git pull --rebase' does not do the Right Thing 
>> (according to me).
>>
>> If I run 'git rebase origin/master', that rebase does the right 
>> thing, perfectly reapplying my *single* commit on top of the upstream.
>>
>> 'git pull --rebase' ends up reapplying a bunch of much earlier 
>> commits and ends up with a conflict.
>>
>> The documentation for git pull --rebase states: "Instead of a merge, 
>> perform a rebase after fetching. If there is a remote ref for the 
>> upstream branch, and this branch was rebased since last fetched, the 
>> rebase uses that information to avoid rebasing non-local changes."  I 
>> do not understand
>>
>> I'm studying the git-pull script right now, but I have to admit this 
>> is beyond me.  I'm sure if I stare hard enough, I'll get it.
>>
>> I mistakenly have assumed 'git pull' = 'git fetch; git merge' and 
>> that 'git pull --rebase' = 'git fetch; git rebase'.  Does anyone want 
>> to clarify what is really going on?  Unfortunately, I can't publish 
>> the repository in question.
>
> Are you by any chance running a git with commit cf65426de?  If not, give
> it a try and see if it corrects your issue.
I was not, but now I am.
> The main difference between "git pull --rebase" and "git fetch && git
> rebase @{u}" is that "git pull --rebase" will attempt to use the reflog
> to find a suitable "upstream" candidate instead of assuming your
> tracking branch is the upstream itself.  This is intended to help
> recover from upstream rebases, but has adverse effects sometimes, which
> commit cf65426de should help with.
Unfortunately, commit cf65426de helps only a little.  The 'git pull 
--rebase' reports "Nothing to do" and moves the master branch to 
origin/master, leaving behind the commit needing to be rebased.

What else might there be to try?  I would like to help with a repro, if 
possible.

Josh

  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-27 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-27  2:59 git pull --rebase differs in behavior from git fetch + git rebase Joshua Jensen
2010-08-27  7:23 ` Santi Béjar
2010-08-27  8:27 ` Dave Olszewski
2010-08-27 15:48   ` Joshua Jensen [this message]
2010-08-27 18:46     ` Elijah Newren
2010-08-27 22:29       ` Joshua Jensen
2010-08-27 23:40         ` Elijah Newren
2010-08-28  2:06           ` Joshua Jensen
2010-08-28  2:40             ` Elijah Newren
2010-08-28  3:13               ` Joshua Jensen

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=4C77DE60.6020809@workspacewhiz.com \
    --to=jjensen@workspacewhiz.com \
    --cc=cxreg@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).