| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The original committer may have used validation criteria that is less
stricter than yours. You do not want to lose the changes even if they
are done in substandard way from your 'commit -v' verifier's point of
view.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
|
The reverse patch application using "git apply" sometimes is too
rigid. Since the user would get used to resolving conflicting merges
by hand during the normal merge experience, using the same machinery
would be more helpful rather than just giving up.
Cherry-picking and reverting are essentially the same operation.
You pick one commit, and apply the difference that commit introduces
to its own commit ancestry chain to the current tree. Revert applies
the diff in reverse while cherry-pick applies it forward. They share
the same logic, just different messages and merge direction.
Rewrite "git rebase" using "git cherry-pick".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
|
Some callers to rev-parse were using the output selection flags
inconsistently.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
|
Given one existing commit, revert the change the patch
introduces, and record a new commit that records it. This
requires your working tree to be clean (no modifications from
the HEAD commit).
This is based on what Linus posted to the list, with
enhancements he suggested, including the use of -M to attempt
reverting renames.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
|
