[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1202875834.3137.201.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:10:34 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
arjan@...radead.org, greg@...ah.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 19:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > Right at the moment, I maintain a <branch> and a <branch>-base and
> > simply cherry pick the commits between the two to do the right thing
> > when I know my volatile base has changed. It would be very helpful to
> > have a version of rebase that new my base had been rebased.
>
> Hey, I know, you could use.. drumroll..
>
> "git rebase"
>
> I know that's a big leap of faith, to use git rebase for rebasing, but
> there you have it. Us git people are kind of odd that way.
>
> IOW, if you know the old broken base, and the new base, just do
>
> git rebase --onto newbase oldbase
>
> and it should do exactly that (basically lots of automated cherry-picks).
OK, smarty-pants ... that works nicely, thanks!
I'm used to maintaining <branch> and <branch>-base, so this probably
suits my workflow better than getting the information from the reflog.
It wasn't clear from the git rebase man page that it would work like
that.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists