From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Symonds" Subject: Re: merge vs rebase: Is visualization in gitk the only problem? Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:16:08 +1000 Message-ID: References: <8E86BDBA-A49A-49BB-8E00-8BF6DD7237E9@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Git Mailing List" To: "Steffen Prohaska" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 27 10:16:24 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 1IlgqF-0004ZY-TO for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:16:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751616AbXJ0IQL (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:16:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750972AbXJ0IQL (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:16:11 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.191]:33868 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750905AbXJ0IQI (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:16:08 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1013858rvb for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/6KeqRD7/EPsL7vIeHfdzAlIFcV6HI1UQc6eTDMeeaQ=; b=L4ky78+bZb1pUMebkxlLjyham5YBTgtLC2mGzLryvw3SaVnzsK5fzgcFF704qmkFhud37kvKEA7Ae52wMebJy+OvVJoL8mKsNxkNVsam6WLRmNKTbyFuxkPHqZIp1/tzGYBAch2mEwFC39PNxVwfmlvaMIf/LGvUivSiqLGqrtY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uEF475OSWpl3t/YBCV+qImfTSO4k9d6Vxo5N5YKdAGgJpSaor5DqH8dhVmgMIqlaQle9Fw3UnPBu0deeFI27/CyVHY1kcedATjs3qX4xNMcuKzpbmo8mWcC7RWWwyKvC6LOck8Y3MoJrcNzQYjMNPfcivfXuRGhB5d5ss9WryVo= Received: by 10.141.48.10 with SMTP id a10mr1915413rvk.1193472968501; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.115.4 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8E86BDBA-A49A-49BB-8E00-8BF6DD7237E9@zib.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 10/27/07, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > Rebase has definitely benefits but not all of its details > are obvious at a first glance. Tell a newbie to read the > git rebase man page and explain what git reabase does and > you know what I mean. Rebase definitely can help to create a > cleaner history. But it rewrites history and therefore destroys > information, for example information about the original code > base a patch was developed against, or merge conflicts that > were resolved. You also need to decide when to use rebase and > when to use merge. So you need to make a choice. > > Why not always use git merge? I'd use git-rebase for when I'm sending stuff upstream that I don't want to force the maintainer to merge, because I can probably do it better and quicker by rebasing. Once that's done, the upstream maintainer can just do a git-am (or similar), and it'll apply neatly on top of the current head. In other words, git-rebase allows the "merge effort" to be shifted to the brancher and away from the mainline maintainer/developer. Dave.