From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Greg Price <price@ksplice.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix rebase -p --onto
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:40:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A6038E8.1090402@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vk52767el.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano schrieb:
> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
>
>> Greg Price schrieb:
>>> In a rebase with --onto, the correct test for whether we can skip
>>> rewriting a commit is if it is already on top of $ONTO, not $UPSTREAM.
>>> Without --onto, this distinction does not exist and the behavior does
>>> not change.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the situation
>>>
>>> X---o---o---o---M
>>> \ /
>>> x---x---x---x
>>>
>>> Y
>>> ...
>>> The command `git rebase -p --onto Y X M` moves only the
>>> first-parent chain, like so:
>>>
>>> X
>>> \
>>> x---x---x---x
>>> \
>>> Y---o'--o'--o'--M'
>>>
>>> because it mistakenly drops the other branch(es) x---x---x---x from
>>> the TODO file. This tests and fixes this behavior.
>> I think the current behavior is by design. There is nothing to fix.
>>
>> The purpose of rebase -p is to leave non-first children alone and rebase
>> only the first child parenthood chain. It is not the purpose to reseat an
>> entire history DAG.
>
> Hmm, if the original history were
>
> .---X---o---o---o---M
> \ /
> x---x---x---x---x
>
> Y
>
> and the rebase is about moving history leading to M since X on top of Y,
> I would actually have agreed that this
>
> .---X---o---o---o---M
> \ /
> x---x---x---x---x
> \
> Y---o'--o'--o'--M'
>
> would be the right thing to do (IOW, I would agree with you).
>
> Can the current code distinguish the two cases? More generally, can we
> always tell these two cases apart, or is it fundamentally not possible to
> differentiate the two cases and we should simplify the problem space by
> limiting ourselves by treating the first parent in a special way?
I have used rebase -i -p in the past to rewrite history that involves
merges of topic branches like this:
---------Y--M--M--F <-- master
/ /
----a--a--a /
/
--b--b--b--b
where F is a fixup that I want to insert between Y and M, and I thought
rebase -i -p was intended for this use-case.
With this in mind, I do not see why should we distinguish the cases. I
would even go so far to say that this is OK:
X---a---o---o---M X---a
\ / ===> \
x---x---x x---x---x
\
Y Y---a'--o'--o'--M'
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-17 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-16 23:00 [PATCH] Fix rebase -p --onto Greg Price
2009-07-17 6:38 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-07-17 8:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-07-17 8:40 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2009-07-17 8:47 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-07-17 16:48 ` Greg Price
2009-07-17 18:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-07-17 19:00 ` Greg Price
2009-07-17 16:33 ` Greg Price
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A6038E8.1090402@viscovery.net \
--to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=price@ksplice.com \
--cc=stephen@exigencecorp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.