From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach 'git pull' the '--rebase' option Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:11:29 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3aurcjpq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v3avy21il.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 28 01:12:00 2007 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 1IxAWw-00019H-UE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:11:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757979AbXK1ALg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758171AbXK1ALg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:36 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:52601 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757048AbXK1ALf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:35 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3782EF; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCC79A61B; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:52:26 +0100 (BST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > ... > I do not want to go into _that_ many details here, since the place to look > for it is git-rebase.txt. Probably I should have done that in the first > place. > > So how about this instead: > > \--rebase:: > Instead of a merge, perform a rebase after fetching. > *NOTE:* This is a potentially _dangerous_ mode of operation. > It rewrites history, which does not bode well when you > published that history already. Do _not_ use this option > unless you have read gitlink:git-rebase[1] carefully. > > Hmm? Okay.