[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: German update in three patches
From: |
Johannes Schindelin |
Subject: |
Re: German update in three patches |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:09:58 +0100 (CET) |
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Till Rettig wrote:
> John Mandereau wrote:
> >
> > What command exactly do you use to generate patches? The following
> > should make clean patches, as long as you committed all your changes and
> > pulled:
> >
> > git-format-patch web/master..myweb
> >
> Yes, I used this without the ..myweb part.
> I see there is some differences: some recommend to use git-format-patch HEAD^
> and the others git-format-patch web/master (or then with this ..myweb
> continuation)
Basically, if you omit the "..<commit>" part, it assumes "..HEAD".
> I found that there is a difference: git-rev-parse HEAD^ gives another
> commitish than git-rev-parse web/master.
This is expected. HEAD^ is the parent of your current (private) branch,
whereas web/master is the upstream (public) one. So they never match
(except after exactly one commit after branching from web/master).
> Well, now it asked me some merge, and I changed the parts in the <<<<
> >>>> and made git add and git-commit. Now it doesn't complain anymore
> about these differences: is this how you do a merge, then?
Yes. Usually you expect no conflicts (this is what you see between "<<<<",
"====" and ">>>>"). But in your case, some changes which you did not
submit (or which were not applied) touched the same parts, so they
conflicted.
BTW If you _know_ that something _will_ conflict, you can "undo" commits
with "git revert <commit>". I say "undo", because this will revert the
patch, but _add_ a commit. The upside is, you can also revert older
commits, e.g. HEAD~5.
Ciao,
Dscho