Re: Messing with the VC history

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:33:32 +0100
> 
> > What about "pull --rebase=preserve"?  It sounds like a less radical
> > option, did I miss something?
> 
> For the usual "let's fix this thing and get it upstream" type of
> work it shouldn't matter.  Otherwise you'll have to remember to
> configure your feature branches differently if they contain merges
> (local merges that is, because merges with upstream wouldn't enter
> into the branch if you rebase by default).

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow: the pull.rebase = preserve setting is
only for the "pull" command, right?  It doesn't affect "merge" and
commands that invoke "merge", like "cherry-pick", right?

If so, why would I need to configure my feature branches differently,
if I don't intend to pull into them from upstream?

My workflow with feature branches is create the branch; do the work;
when it's almost done, merge from master and test; then merge back
into master and push.  There's no pulling here except from upstream to
master.

> For longer term work that's kept in feature branches I prefer to
> rebase on top of upstream rather than merge and usually do a full
> rewrite before pushing it upstream as well.

Well, I prefer merging instead, see above.