Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #01; Tue, 1)

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:31:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:11:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
[snip]
> > "--keep-empty" has always been about keeping an originally empty
> > commit, not a commit that becomes empty because of rebasing
> > (i.e. what has already been applied to the updated base).  The
> > documentation, if it leads to any other interpretation, needs to be
> > fixed.
> > 
> > Besides, if "--keep-empty" were to mean "keep redundant ones that
> > are already in the updated base", the patch must do a lot more,
> > e.g. stop filtering with git-cherry patch equivalence.
> > 
> > I'm inclined to eject this topic.
> 
> That was my thinking too (and I notice it didn't get any review from
> anybody else).
[snip]

Well, I kind of agree. The cherry-pick command has both
--allow-empty and --keep-redundant flags, where the second one is
the kind of behavior I want to achieve in my case. As an
alternative to the proposed change to `--keep-empty` I could
instead introduce a new flag `--keep-redundant-commits` to `git
rebase` which would then pass the flag through to the
cherry-pick.

Any opinions on this?

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]