From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:37:21 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-tegra/master In-Reply-To: <4EE243E6.1060501@aribaud.net> References: <7E91C59574E9954FA075F8D8CCDF78DB392DCD5D59@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com> <4EE065AE.4010007@aribaud.net> <4EE0E99C.1000404@nvidia.com> <4EE22B01.3070409@aribaud.net> <4EE24113.7020005@nvidia.com> <4EE243E6.1060501@aribaud.net> Message-ID: <4EE24751.9020900@nvidia.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 12/09/2011 10:22 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 09/12/2011 18:10, Stephen Warren a ?crit : ... >> Doesn't u-boot/master only move forward by merges, whereas >> u-boot-arm/master move forward by rebases? > > Well, as per the wiki, u-boot/master should move by rebases, or more > exactly, by fast-forwards, as pull requests to it should always be > (re)based on it. OK, then the process is just different from what I expected. In that case, consider my comments irrelevant. Although, I'm having a hard time reconciling that statement with u-boot/master's history; there are a lot of non-fast-forward merges there. (and fast-forward is a merge, just the simplest case) ... > Er... Rebase *does* 3-way merges when necessary and possible. I just saw > it done while pulling tegra, samsung and imx requests. I don't think that's possible; with rebase, there is no common ancestor, so you can't do a 3-way merge. The rebase conflicts end up being marked up in the conflicting files in a similar fashion to a 3-way merge though, but I think it's somewhat fake and just showing the differences between the base that was in the patch being applied and current code, which isn't quite the same thing. -- nvpublic