On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> I think I may want to introduce a bigger change, still. I forgot who
> exactly came up with the suggestion to use `merge -C
> ` (I think it was Jake), and I reacted too forcefully in
> rejecting it.
>
I believe someone else suggested
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > Changes since v1:
> >
> > - reintroduced "sequencer: make refs generated by the `label` command
> > worktree-local" (which was squashed into "sequencer: handle autosquash
> > and post-rewrite for merge
Hi Stefan,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > - got rid of the universally-hated `bud` command
>
> Sorry if you got the impression for that. Maybe I was imprecise.
You were not the most vocal voice. Anyway, `bud` is gone now.
> > Stefan Beller (1):
> > git-rebase--interactive: cla
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Changes since v1:
>
> - reintroduced "sequencer: make refs generated by the `label` command
> worktree-local" (which was squashed into "sequencer: handle autosquash
> and post-rewrite for merge commands" by accident)
Good.
> - got rid of the universally-hated `
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
> flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
> faithfully.
>
> My original attempt was --preserve-merges, but that design was so
> limited that I
Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
faithfully.
My original attempt was --preserve-merges, but that design was so
limited that I did not even enable it in interactive mode.
Subsequently, it *was* ena
6 matches
Mail list logo