NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
rebase (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this seems like the right command, and from the documentation this should be working. I'm executing:
My understanding is this should select all of the commits that are in work but not in local, and then apply them all to stage. git crunches some numbers or something, even ran garbage collection, seems to do something ... but my "stage" branch is left completely unchanged, as far as I can tell.
I tried using the -i (interactive) option to git-rebase, and I could
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re: (Score:1)
I haven’t actually tried this, but going by the documentation, it seems like your situation is as in the
git-rebase --onto master topicA topicBexample in the docs. So if I understand correctly, yourstagebranch would indeed remain untouched – however, after rebasing, theworkbranch would be rooted onstageinstead oflocal.To verify, switch to
workand check the log.Re:rebase (Score:2)
Hey, you're correct! That's what it did!
I'm still not sure how I was misunderstanding the docs. But, I think I can use this. I can completely drop the concept of the stage branch, I think, and just rebase work branches to master when I am ready to commit them.
I think. Still a little scared. And I'm even more scared that the next thought I had was, "At least I still have CVS to tell me what's changed or not; that should make me feel secure." Seriously. And then I thought, "Yeah, right."
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Reply to This
Parent