On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:52:38PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > I want the warning that they had not made the required config choice
> > between rebase/merge needed to handle a non-ff case, not the default
> > merge (or rebase) behavior. The warning gives them a chanc
"W. Trevor King" writes:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:34:53AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>>
>> > Or they may not even realize that they've just merged an unrelated
>> > branch at all, dragging in a thousand unrelated commits which they
>> > accidentally push to a cent
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 08:34:53AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
> >> easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
"W. Trevor King" writes:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
>> easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
>> that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
>>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
> easy with "git pull", a person who is new to Git may not realize
> that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
> workflow.
Or they may not even r
Assorted minor edits:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Because letting a trivial merge automatically handled by Git is so
Maybe:
Because letting Git handle a trivial merge automatically is so…
> that the project s/he is interacting with may prefer "rebase"
> w
6 matches
Mail list logo
