Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] rebase: add switches to control todo-list setup

[Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>]

Hi Phil,

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:20:29PM -0700, Phil Hord wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:16 PM Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have the same need.  I plan to have some switch that invokes this
> > "in-place rebase" behavior so that git can choose the upstream for me
> > as `mergebase $sequence-edits`.  In fact, I want to make that the
> > default for these switches, but that feels too surprising for the
> > rebase command. I plan to progress like this:
> >
> >     # --in-place switch is not supported; manual upstream is given by user
> >     git rebase --edit foo foo^
> >
> >      # --in-place switch is added; now we can say this
> >      git rebase --edit foo --in-place
> 
> I originally CC'ed Denton on this thread because he recently added
> --keep-base.  I initially hoped it would do something similar to
> --in-place, but on reading the patch discussion, I think it's for
> something different altogether.  :-\   It's similar, though, in the
> same way that --fork-point is; which may be another way to say "not
> very."

You're correct, --keep-base is a little more explicit than your proposed
--in-place switch in that the former requires an upstream revision be
specified whereas yours implicitly finds the base using the
$sequence-edits. I suppose until --in-place is implemented, users could
always use explicitly specify the upstream branch, such as:

	$ git rebase --edit foo --keep-base master

Anyway, I've been following along with the discussion and although there
are kinks to iron out, I like the general idea. Although I use fixup and
squash commits + rebase -i --keep-base for major branch polishing,
sometimes after the branch is mostly polished, there are a few
last-minute changes to be made. I think that your proposed solution
would also match my use-case nicely.

Thanks,

Denton