From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git rebase -i Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:20:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20090219102053.GA17417@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <43d8ce650902190121v2e18aac1rfaa64a4ce6e799a3@mail.gmail.com> <43d8ce650902190155m4de23643r8a9d3c35686ea4e9@mail.gmail.com> <2A7CAA9F-DB42-4782-BF61-41E8DA577DF2@wincent.com> <20090219101154.GB16119@coredump.intra.peff.net> <6887C6DB-E9C8-4DC8-BD1E-C20E92271FA5@wincent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: John Tapsell , Git Mailing List To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 19 11:22:31 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1La62x-0004w3-4r for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:22:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753150AbZBSKUz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:20:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752941AbZBSKUz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:20:55 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:40104 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751526AbZBSKUz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:20:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 21636 invoked by uid 107); 19 Feb 2009 10:21:16 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:21:16 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:20:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6887C6DB-E9C8-4DC8-BD1E-C20E92271FA5@wincent.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:15:51AM +0100, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: >> Actually, I don't think that's true anymore with "rebase -i"; it is >> probably most convenient way in core git to rewrite the history of a >> patchset. E.g., a core part of my workflow as a contributor is: >> >> $ git checkout -b jk/topic origin >> $ while true; do hack hack hack; commit commit commit; done >> $ git rebase -i origin >> >> which gives me a list of everything on the topic, ready to be >> reordered, squashed, or edited as appropriate. > > Yes, I do the same. But notice that you did "git rebase -i -- > >>>origin<<<---". Seems to me you are definitely _thinking_ in terms of > your topic _branch_ and not in terms of "the last few commits". Perhaps. I think of it as "the set of commits not yet published" (since I publish only by sending patches to Junio, and he is my origin) and nothing to do with the topic branch itself. But we are just quibbling over minor terminology. I think we both agree that HEAD~10 is silly and abitrary. -Peff