www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [1/2] git commit: f92a685 -
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:45:26 GMT

On 06/06/2012, at 10:23 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
>> Joe, you probably want this if you use git pull:
>> 
>>  git config branch.master.rebase true
>> 
>> That makes it the equivalent of "git fetch origin; git rebase origin/master"
>> instead of fetch and merge, so your changes will be rewritten against the
>> latest commit and the merge commit omitted.
> 
> I know there are many people who prefer rebase over merge for such
> cases, but personally I don't like it. Using rebase with Git is a bit
> like disabling or removing svn:mergeinfo properties in Subversion
> (which I've seem many people do because they don't understand the
> concept behind and the benefits of the feature).
> 
> Much of the confusion with merge commits is just a result of tooling
> not keeping up with new concepts. A better notification mailer like
> the one I suggested makes such cases much easier to understand and
> handle.

Sorry, but I don't follow. I excluded work on different branches from this (which is what
svn:mergeinfo represents).

Can you describe a use case where it is useful to retain merge information between master
and origin/master on a clone?

Are you saying this is something you'd find helpful to you if other people on a project did,
or that it's a preference you have for the way you work yourself?

Cheers,
Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter






Mime
View raw message