From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding rebase merge strategy Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:28:05 -0700 Message-ID: <7vir5qqxl6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <11912513203420-git-send-email-tom@u2i.com> <7vr6ker1lf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <550f9510710011441t1eb50352ofc8db77f79d794d5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, git@vger.kernel.org To: "Tom Clarke" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 00:28:23 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 1IcTkU-0008Ko-CH for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:28:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752588AbXJAW2O (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:28:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751960AbXJAW2O (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:28:14 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:60015 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751941AbXJAW2N (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:28:13 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8393713FB8C; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:28:32 -0400 (EDT) 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 rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB64913FCBB; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:28:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <550f9510710011441t1eb50352ofc8db77f79d794d5@mail.gmail.com> (Tom Clarke's message of "Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:41:56 +0200") 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: "Tom Clarke" writes: > I'm happy to try to address the issues you raised, but I wonder if we > would do better to look back at my original proposal which was to add > a --rebase option to git-pull. git-pull is the main place there I see > need for using a rebase instead of a merge, as anywhere where you > might use git-merge directly, if what you really want is a rebase, you > can just run git-rebase. Yeah, we have taught "git-pull == git-fetch + git-merge" to our users, and "-s strategy" has been a way to specify _how_ the merge is done, and not about doing something that is not a merge. As you say, rebase is not doing a merge. But neither is "squash". "git-pull --rebase == git-fetch + git-rebase" might be simpler for end users to understand. I dunno.