From: "Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>,
Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nicer frontend to get rebased tree?
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:13:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080823221324.GA18472@atjola.homenet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808231440530.3363@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
On 2008.08.23 14:52:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >
> > you got nice and detailed answers, for example you can track a
> > rebased tree in your working directory using git pull --rebase.
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> No, you really really cannot do that.
>
> If the _tree_ you are tracking is itself rebasing (not just your own
> tree), then you cannot and absolutely SHOULD NOT use rebase (not directly,
> and not with "git pull --rebase".
>
> Why?
>
> Let's look at what happens. Let's say that your history looks like
>
> ... -> A -> B -> C -> a -> b -> c
>
> where the upper-case letters are from the tree you track, and the
> lower-case letters are the commits you added yourself.
>
> Now, let's say that the tree you track gets rebased, and in the process
> 'B' is removed (because it turns out it was buggy), and A and C get
> modified. What happens?
>
> You now have
>
> ... -> A -> B -> C -> a -> b -> c <- your branch
> \
> other stuff -> A' -> C' <- newly rebased branch
>
> (where "other stuff" is whatever the remote branch was rebased on top
> of) and when you now try to rebase your stuff on top of the newly rebased
> branch, you are going to end up trying to rebase all the _old_ commits
> that weren't even yours (ie it's going to try to rebase A, B and C too!)
But before the fetch step, you have remote/branch point to your old
upstream. If "pull --rebase" remembers that and uses:
git rebase --onto remote/branch $old_upstream
That should work. And in fact, it actually seems to do that.
exec git-rebase $strategy_args --onto $merge_head \
${oldremoteref:-$merge_head}
With $oldremoteref being the remote tracking branch before the rebase.
That said, it seems very fragile. One "git fetch" and your upstream is
lost and the next "pull --rebase" will fail.
So a somewhat less fragile way to do it would be:
git checkout -b foo origin/foo
git branch foo-upstream
....
git fetch origin
git rebase --onto origin/foo foo-upstream
git branch -f foo-upstream origin/foo
So that you always have the current upstream for your branch available
and can thus do a correct rebase. That at least doesn't break on its
own, but still does when you forget to adjust your upstream reference.
I don't actually like the idea, but maybe a refs/upstreams namespace
could be used by some script to keep track of the current upstreams of
local branches and to help with such a workflow, if one really badly
wants to do that... *hides*
Björn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-23 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-22 17:46 nicer frontend to get rebased tree? Andi Kleen
2008-08-22 17:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-22 18:27 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-22 19:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-22 20:11 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-22 20:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-22 20:36 ` Björn Steinbrink
2008-08-22 20:46 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-22 20:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-22 21:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-08-23 7:10 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-23 9:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2008-08-23 16:36 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-23 23:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2008-08-23 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-23 16:45 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-23 17:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-25 9:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-23 18:18 ` Björn Steinbrink
2008-08-23 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-23 20:08 ` Björn Steinbrink
2008-08-23 21:38 ` Documentating branches (was: nicer frontend to get rebased tree?) Marius Vollmer
2008-08-23 22:17 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-08-23 22:30 ` Documenting branches Marius Vollmer
2008-08-23 22:18 ` Documentating branches Marius Vollmer
2008-08-22 17:56 ` nicer frontend to get rebased tree? Avery Pennarun
2008-08-22 18:31 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-22 19:03 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-22 19:34 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-08-23 7:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-23 8:52 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-23 9:21 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-08-23 16:53 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-23 21:04 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-23 21:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-23 22:09 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-08-23 22:13 ` Björn Steinbrink [this message]
2008-08-24 0:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-08-23 22:49 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-08-23 23:01 ` Theodore Tso
2008-08-23 23:01 ` A proposed solution (Was: nicer frontend to get rebased tree?) Theodore Tso
2008-08-22 20:11 ` nicer frontend to get rebased tree? Mikael Magnusson
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=20080823221324.GA18472@atjola.homenet \
--to=b.steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=apenwarr@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).