From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wincent Colaiuta Subject: Re: git rebase -i Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2A7CAA9F-DB42-4782-BF61-41E8DA577DF2@wincent.com> References: <43d8ce650902190121v2e18aac1rfaa64a4ce6e799a3@mail.gmail.com> <43d8ce650902190155m4de23643r8a9d3c35686ea4e9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Git Mailing List To: John Tapsell X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 19 11:00:50 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 1La5i4-0005pO-Qg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:00:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754127AbZBSJ7V convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:59:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753755AbZBSJ7V (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:59:21 -0500 Received: from wincent1.inetu.net ([209.235.192.161]:32812 "EHLO wincent1.inetu.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751989AbZBSJ7U convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:59:20 -0500 Received: from cuzco.lan (54.pool85-53-5.dynamic.orange.es [85.53.5.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by wincent1.inetu.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1J9xGBk030124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:59:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43d8ce650902190155m4de23643r8a9d3c35686ea4e9@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: El 19/2/2009, a las 10:55, John Tapsell escribi=F3: > 2009/2/19 Wincent Colaiuta : >> El 19/2/2009, a las 10:21, John Tapsell escribi=F3: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I often do 'git rebase -i HEAD~10' to rebase. Since afaics it >>> doesn't matter if you go back 'too far' I just always use HEAD~10 =20 >>> even >>> if it's just for the last or so commit. >>> >>> Would there be any objections to making 'git rebase -i' default to >>> HEAD~10 or maybe 16 or 20. >> >> Sounds awfully arbitrary and counter-intuitive to me. >> >> Take a sample of Git users who know what "git rebase" does and ask =20 >> them what >> they intuitively think "git rebase -i" without any additional =20 >> arguments >> should do; I'd be _extremely_ surprised if they answered that it =20 >> should >> default to HEAD~10, HEAD~16, HEAD~20, or HEAD~N for any N. >> >> (I could tell you what my intuition tells me, but I don't think =20 >> it's very >> interesting.) > > It doesn't really matter if the user manages to guess what the number > N is, just that it's "recent commits". > > If a sample of git users would expect "git rebase -i" to let you > rebase the last few commits, then it doesn't really matter all that > much what N is. 10 seems a reasonable default as any. That's exactly the problem. Most git users aren't going to expect "git = =20 rebase -i" to let you "rebase the last few commits". Rebase is mostly used, talked about, and conceptualized in terms of =20 rebasing onto other _branches_. Cheers, Wincent