Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • There should be no topic-0, topic-1 and topic-2 branches. The second the rebase is complete, the previous version is irrelevant. So all there would be is topic@{1}, topic@{2}, topic@{yesterday}, topic@{3.days.ago} etc. to save your butt in case you find you screwed conflict resolution in the rebase. Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 11:18
  • The three branches exist, but have no name (no ref). Maybe I should emphasize this. Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 11:20
  • The revisions exist and are pointed to by reflog entries. But as branches there is just one, topic. Because branch in git is just the name. Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 11:29
  • How does it save me from "foreign merges"? What if someone merges to master after I send topic-2 to a teammate and that the teammate reviews it against the tip of the master? Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 18:03
  • @JanHudec At any time, there is only one branch called topic in GIT, it is always one of the branches (a branch as in commit tree, not as in GIT reference) I labelled topic-0, topic-1, topic-2. Commented Oct 15, 2013 at 19:02