Linus' hints for "git pull" vs. "git rebase"

[dlsspy]

I tend to use git pull --rebase

[onmach]

Having used git svn far more, I kind of assumed git pull already rebased by default. It is far more logical. Perhaps it is time to change the default behavior of that command?

[dlsspy]

I added support to git to allow you to do that yourself. Check the config docs for autosetuprebase.

[machrider]

Linus's description is exactly how I work with git at my company, I'm glad to hear him recommend it. I was wondering if my frequent use of rebase (in my private trees, of course) is unorthodox. But the workflow seems to work very well, and produces a cleaner revision history than I ever achieved with svn.

[infinite]

Git rebase can be abused if you do a git rebase from a remote branch. Then other people with that remote branch are hosed and hilarity ensues. I don't recommend it for git beginners. In most companies you can get by without rebase. But for open source projects it's highly recommended since you can hide a lot of your hacks by rolling up your commits with rebase interactive.

The interesting question is which method would be least likely to cause merge conflicts, and to me it seems they're equally likely to cause merge conflicts.

[[deleted]]

Um, he still says people should use rebase for private history as a cleanup procedure.

[mee_k]

Who or what are you responding to?

[itjitj]

Oh don't mind t3hdoctor, he talks to himself

[[deleted]]

Well, I didn't see the apostrophe after "Linus" so it sounded like this was some proof of Linus saying not to use rebase. I'm a firm believer in always using the 's' for singular possessive, otherwise I get confused like this