On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
> rid of this inconsistency?
You can actually rely on "rebase" to run the appropriate command. In
the first edit commit (the_
no conflict one), I usually run only "git add" to add my c
Andrew Wong wrote:
> On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
>> rid of this inconsistency?
>
> You can actually rely on "rebase" to run the appropriate command.
Didn't Junio explicitly mention that this is undesirable earli
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Andrew Wong wrote:
>> You can actually rely on "rebase" to run the appropriate command.
>
> Didn't Junio explicitly mention that this is undesirable earlier (from
> the point of view of `rebase -i` design)?
I missed the earlier discussion. Does the documentation (e.
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Andrew Wong wrote:
>> On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>> I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
>>> rid of this inconsistency?
>>
>> You can actually rely on "rebase" to run the appropriate command.
>
> Didn't Junio explicit
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>
>> Andrew Wong wrote:
>>> On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
rid of this inconsistency?
>>>
>>> You can actually rely on "rebase" to run the appropriate com
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
> attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
> that we can start working on?
Is there any deadline or migration path needed? Depending on the
design, it might be possible
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>
>> I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
>> attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
>> that we can start working on?
>
> Is there any deadline or migration path needed? Depending
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>
>>> I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
>>> attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
>>> that we can start working on?
>>
>> Is there any deadline or mi
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I am not convinced yet why we would even want "git continue"
>> in the first place, so I won't be the one who would be suggesting a
>> migration path.
>
> Okay, I'm confused now. You were the one who suggested a unified "git
> conti
9 matches
Mail list logo