Re: Unexpected/unexplained difference between git pull --rebase and git rebase

[Mike Botsko <botsko@gmail.com>]

Maybe I'm lacking the distinction regarding what I'm being specific about.

In both examples, I'm asking it specifically to rebase in changes from
the remote "upstream" and a named branch at that location. I'm giving
git the same information, it's just interpreting it differently - and
I'm not understanding why.

My local branch would have been created from the
upstream/feature-branch, and will eventually be merged back into it.
Until I'm ready for that, I regularly rebase the work done on
upstream/feature-branch so that my local work is always clean and
above anything else.



On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
>
>> git-rebase assumes that if you give an explicit upstream then you want
>> precisely what you asked for.  From git-rebase(1):
>>
>>       If either <upstream> or --root is given on the command line,
>>       then the default is `--no-fork-point`, otherwise the default is
>>       `--fork-point`.
>
> Correct.
>
> You ask it to rebase the history without guessing by being explicit;
> the command guesses when you are not explicit and being lazy ;-).
>



-- 
Mike Botsko
Lead Dev @ Helion3
Ph: 1-(503)-897-0155