| commit | 409f066716598d5050c34b7bb0e6859940428dcf | |
| author | brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> | |
| Sun, 20 Sep 2020 23:22:30 +0000 (20 23:22 +0000) | ||
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | |
| Mon, 21 Sep 2020 04:29:02 +0000 (20 21:29 -0700) | ||
| tree | 6c8ca42b372e3681b8c1d79f6568bc7296dec754 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 5065ce412ef083a02288c1972ea3d07423cace0e | commitdiff |
docs: explain why reverts are not always applied on merge
A common scenario is for a user to apply a change to one branch and
cherry-pick it into another, then later revert it in the first branch.
This results in the change being present when the two branches are
merged, which is confusing to many users.
We already have documentation for how this works in `git merge`, but it
is clear from the frequency with which this is asked that it's hard to
grasp. We also don't explain to users that they are better off doing a
rebase in this case, which will do what they intended. Let's add an
entry to the FAQ telling users what's happening and advising them to use
rebase here.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A common scenario is for a user to apply a change to one branch and
cherry-pick it into another, then later revert it in the first branch.
This results in the change being present when the two branches are
merged, which is confusing to many users.
We already have documentation for how this works in `git merge`, but it
is clear from the frequency with which this is asked that it's hard to
grasp. We also don't explain to users that they are better off doing a
rebase in this case, which will do what they intended. Let's add an
entry to the FAQ telling users what's happening and advising them to use
rebase here.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
| Documentation/gitfaq.txt | diffblobblamehistory |