I sympathize with what you are trying to do but I do not think this is
correct. You will *never* rebase remote on top of your changes; rather
you will replay your changes on top of what the updated remote has.
It is more like "if you start git pull while on branch rebaser, it will
rebased on top of this branch from the remote".
From: Marc Branchaud <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:08
Junio C Hamano wrote:
I sympathize with what you are trying to do but I do not think this is
correct. You will *never* rebase remote on top of your changes; rather
you will replay your changes on top of what the updated remote has.
It is more like "if you start git pull while on branch rebaser, it will
rebased on top of this branch from the remote".
I'm happy to use more accurate phrasing -- I was just going for a minimal change.
How about the following, consistent for both cases:
'git pull' merges branch master with remote branch
master
'git pull' rebases branch rebaser on top of remote branch
side
?
I like the above because the keywords & branch names are in consistent locations, making it easier to parse the output.
Marc
From: Jay Soffian <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:08
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] wrote:
I'm happy to use more accurate phrasing -- I was just going for a minimal change.
How about the following, consistent for both cases:
'git pull' merges branch master with remote branch
master
'git pull' rebases branch rebaser on top of remote branch
side
?
I like the above because the keywords & branch names are in consistent locations, making it easier to parse the output.
The output of git remote show seems much too verbose for the
information it provides. Something like this, I think, provides the
same information in much less space:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
maint Tracked
man Tracked
master Tracked
next Tracked
pu Tracked
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
Local branches configured to pull from this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
wip/remote-HEAD upstream is next (rebases)
When run with "-n" the status column would be blank or say "Status not
available with -n".
$0.02. :-)
j.
From: Marc Branchaud <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:09
Jay Soffian wrote:
The output of git remote show seems much too verbose for the
information it provides.
I agree.
I'm happy to hammer out and implement new output for 'remote show', but is there any chance that such a change would be accepted?
Junio, Dscho, (others) -- any opposition to this?
Something like this, I think, provides the
same information in much less space:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
maint Tracked
man Tracked
master Tracked
next Tracked
pu Tracked
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
Local branches configured to pull from this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
wip/remote-HEAD upstream is next (rebases)
How about something a bit tighter, merging the local branch list with the remote branch list:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
master Tracked by local branches:
master (merges)
mywork (rebases)
next Tracked by local branch:
wip/remote-HEAD (rebases)
pu Tracked by local branch:
pu (merges)
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
?
M.
From: Johannes Sixt <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:09
Marc Branchaud schrieb:
Jay Soffian wrote:
quoted
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
maint Tracked
man Tracked
master Tracked
next Tracked
pu Tracked
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
Local branches configured to pull from this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
wip/remote-HEAD upstream is next (rebases)
I find this form more useful than the one below because of the clear
separation into remote an local branchs.
How about something a bit tighter, merging the local branch list with the remote branch list:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
master Tracked by local branches:
master (merges)
mywork (rebases)
next Tracked by local branch:
wip/remote-HEAD (rebases)
pu Tracked by local branch:
pu (merges)
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
From: Marc Branchaud <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:09
Jay Soffian wrote:
The output of git remote show seems much too verbose for the
information it provides. Something like this, I think, provides the
same information in much less space:
* remote origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Remote branches:
html Not tracked
maint Tracked
man Tracked
master Tracked
next Tracked
pu Tracked
todo Not tracked
old-next Stale (would prune)
Local branches configured to pull from this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
wip/remote-HEAD upstream is next (rebases)
The current test case for 'remote show' (without my rebase patch) is:
* remote origin
URL: $(pwd)/one
Remote branch merged with 'git pull' while on branch master
master
New remote branch (next fetch will store in remotes/origin)
master
Tracked remote branches
side
master
Local branches pushed with 'git push'
master:upstream
+refs/tags/lastbackup
Should that last bit about 'git push' change as well (I admit I don't really understand what that part is saying)? Or should we just be consistent? Maybe something like:
* remote origin
URL: $(pwd)/one
Remote branches:
master Tracked
side Not tracked
flip Tracked
New remote branch (next fetch will store in remotes/origin)
master
Local branches tracking this remote:
master upstream is master (merges)
rebaser upstream is flip (rebases)
Local branches pushed with 'git push'
master:upstream
+refs/tags/lastbackup
M.