In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Simon Sasburg" writes: > I'm by no means a git expert myself, but i tend to be a fast learner. > Reading through the git-rebase section of the git user manual, it > seems to me the obvious solution is for unionfs to use merge instead > of rebase to keep up with kernel releases. > > This line i found elsewhere in the manual supports this: > "For true distributed development that supports proper merging, > published branches should never be rewritten." > This is from the "Problems with rewriting history" section, but rebase > also rewrites the history of a branch, so i think it also applies to > rebase. > > Anyway, what is the reason you use rebase instead of merge? > > Simon
Jeff, why not use git-merge? Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
