From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Webb Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:20:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20120927122035.GL16059@arachsys.com> References: <1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com> <50582873.603@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Martin von Zweigbergk X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 27 14:20:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1THD5E-0007S0-7N for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:20:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753721Ab2I0MUj (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:20:39 -0400 Received: from alpha.arachsys.com ([91.203.57.7]:36392 "EHLO alpha.arachsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202Ab2I0MUi (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:20:38 -0400 Received: from [81.2.114.212] (helo=arachsys.com) by alpha.arachsys.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1THD52-0003jJ-S5; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:20:37 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Martin von Zweigbergk writes: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > Why? Is it more like "--root implies --force"? > > It doesn't currently exactly imply --force, but the effect is the > same. Also see my reply to Junio's email in this thread. > > Maybe Chris has some thoughts on this? Hi Martin and Johannes. Sorry for the slow follow-up here. You're right that rebase --root without --onto always creates a brand new root as a result of the implementation using a sentinel commit. Clearly this is what's wanted with --interactive, but rebase --root with neither --onto nor --interactive is a slightly odd combination for which I struggle to imagine a natural use. Perhaps you're right that for consistency it should be a no-op unless --force-rebase is given? If we did this, this combination would be a no-op unconditionally as by definition we're always descended from the root of our current commit. However, given the not-very-useful behaviour, I suspect that rebase --root is much more likely to be a mistyped version of rebase -i --root than rebase --root --force-rebase. (Unless I'm missing a reasonable use for this? History linearisation perhaps?) Best wishes, Chris.