X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
	subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=
	TEdU4o0sUms8R3AqfGgQy5JfZCzp6ImLNOUvSdWQrEA=; b=VH01kZzLv4boyN/p
	NPlSZIMgN9D/O/T1BH2WL3hlzW6PHc0/CR0nYlkKdaiHuztsrZ8RkSbRe7HKi6dr
	1rKAcRKjMAcGsoUIwwAeJ+seLDFeMLVl8zp3eCr1dMy2H3oIbjDh6qqpVhjTJR9+
	eeUlde0NaFlISH7G9vciCLsM21c=
Subject: Re: [geda-user] How to fix gerbv to compile with gcc5?
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <20151006115833 DOT GA6570 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
 <5613C2EC DOT 7080900 AT jump-ing DOT de> <20151006132005 DOT GA5039 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
 <5613DDD9 DOT 7090001 AT jump-ing DOT de>
 <CABuVarJXCb0VRXDX98JzjheLqMULeBE_SzbXz3ZO30BzPzeQEw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <56142443 DOT 5040209 AT jump-ing DOT de> <20151006195807 DOT 20938 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
 <CAC4O8c-JKFVzuBSVeBTDXs-W+f6xGAQMEM-gTFS11_xR6L0GVg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From: "Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5614375D.1050603@jump-ing.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:04:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c-JKFVzuBSVeBTDXs-W+f6xGAQMEM-gTFS11_xR6L0GVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Am 06.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Britton Kerin:

> What's the difference between fast-forward rebase and fast-forward merge
> anyway?

The characters one types at the command line to get it done :-) Rebasing
and merging only differ in the non-fast-forward case.

Cherry-picking is slightly different, it creates identical, but new
commits. New commits have a different hash. Still fine, because
identical commits never cause conflicts and one of the pair is
guaranteed to vanish on a rebase.


Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/