|author||Ian Jackson <email@example.com>||2018-04-22 22:46:28 +0100|
|committer||Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2018-06-16 22:40:13 +0100|
git-debrebase: Do not mind stitching an unlaundered branch
<Diziet> I discover that stitch treats non-launderedness as a snag. <Diziet> This is not quite compatible with these newfangled push-your-unlaundered-stuff workflows. <Diziet> It would be possible to make one of prepush or stitch (currently synonyms) behave differently in this respect. <spwhitton> do you know why stitch treats non-launderedness as a snag? <spwhitton> given that we expect [most people] to use `git debrebase conclude`, which launders, and never invoke `git debrebase stitch` explicitly, it would be okay to change that such that `git debrebase stitch` does not consider non-launderedness to be a snag. <Diziet> I think it does that just because I am the kind of person who thinks, when writing some routine, "what could I check here?" :-) <Diziet> I think you are perhaps right that it ought not to. <Diziet> "conclude" didn't exist then of course. <spwhitton> okay. git-debrebase(1) could note "you probably want conclude because you probably want to launder" <Diziet> Mmmm. Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'git-debrebase.1.pod')
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/git-debrebase.1.pod b/git-debrebase.1.pod
index 7325170..9f82a7c 100644
@@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ This is a good command to run before pushing to a git server.
If there is no ffq-prev, it is an error, unless --noop-ok.
-It is a snag (see B<-f>) if the branch is not laundered.
+You should consider using B<conclude> instead,
+because that launders the branch too.
=item git-debrebase new-upstream-v0 <new-version> [<upstream-details>...]