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

fully updated and can catch other problems early. Is there a better way to do this, so that we never risk rewriting the "middle tier"? On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:40 PM, John Keeping wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:20:48PM -0800, Mike Botsko wrote: >> Maybe I'm lacking

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

-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 be

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

ion of git, but it wasn't fixed. I assume he was incorrect in that git rebase uses --fork-point by default? On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:09 PM, John Keeping wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:39:31PM -0800, Mike Botsko wrote: >> I'm seeing unexpected behavior between "git pull

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

s should work the same, yet one is choosing a different commit hash than the other. If this is not a bug, I can't find anyone who can explain what's happening. I'm using git 2.2.1 on mac, but other people on our team have a variety of older versions and we're all seeing the same resu