On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 09:43:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com> writes:
> > 
> > > This makes rebase act a little more like merge when working on the
> > > current branch.  This is particularly useful for `git pull --rebase`
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  ARG!  This is what v3 was supposed to be.  I should make sure I am sending in
> > >  the correct patch.
> > 
> > Yeah, I was scratching my head about the discrepancy between the revision
> > comment and the patch in the previous one.
> > 
> > Having said that, thanks to updates to git-rebase, rebased_branch@{1} has
> > useful information these days, so I do not see much practical upside, even
> > though I _will_ apply this patch, just for the sake of consistency.
> > 
> > We would make it _appear_ rebase and merge are interchangeable even more.
> > But the thing is, I am not convinced if promoting that appearance is
> > necessarily a good thing.
> > 
> > You now do not have to say something like:
> > 
> > 	After a 'git pull' you can view 'git diff ORIG_HEAD..' to check
> > 	what are new, but 'git pull --rebase' is different and you would
> > 	say 'git diff branch@{1}.." instead.
> > 
> > and you can tell the users that ORIG_HEAD can be used in both cases.
> 
> And in both cases, you could use HEAD@{1} instead of ORIG_HEAD.

Forget it, I just woke up, I'm writing crap.

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html