Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Sergey Organov sorga...@gmail.com writes:
I think you meant to say that we may find a better source to calculate
the exact set of commits to rebase,...
Yes.
It is debatable if we should do the same when the user tells us to
rebase with respect to
Sergey Organov sorga...@gmail.com writes:
I think you meant to say that we may find a better source to calculate
the exact set of commits to rebase,...
Yes.
It is debatable if we should do the same when the user tells us to
rebase with respect to a specific _branch_ by giving the 'upstream'
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Sergey Organov sorga...@gmail.com writes:
Vanilla git rebase defaults to --fork-point that in some cases
makes behavior very different from git rebase upstream,
where --no-fork-point is assumed. This fact was not mentioned in
the DESCRIPTION section
Sergey Organov sorga...@gmail.com writes:
Vanilla git rebase defaults to --fork-point that in some cases
makes behavior very different from git rebase upstream,
where --no-fork-point is assumed. This fact was not mentioned in
the DESCRIPTION section of the manual page, even though the case of
Vanilla git rebase defaults to --fork-point that in some cases
makes behavior very different from git rebase upstream,
where --no-fork-point is assumed. This fact was not mentioned in
the DESCRIPTION section of the manual page, even though the case of
omitted upstream was otherwise discussed. That
5 matches
Mail list logo
