From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git rebase -i Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:11:00 -0800 Message-ID: <7vzlgij7cb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <43d8ce650902190121v2e18aac1rfaa64a4ce6e799a3@mail.gmail.com> <76718490902191255w24b30bd8jacaed8aa919d6526@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: John Tapsell , Git Mailing List To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 20 01:12:39 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 1LaJ0O-0002cm-Ei for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:12:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755881AbZBTALK (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:11:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755839AbZBTALJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:11:09 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:59583 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755844AbZBTALJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:11:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BFD9B682; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17AA79B67D; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:11:01 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F7B0F2A8-FEE2-11DD-BC0F-B26E209B64D9-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jay Soffian writes: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:21 AM, John Tapsell wrote: >> 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 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. Having sensible defaults for commands >> helps a bit with making it easier to use. > > I think the following might be reasonable to support: > > $ git rebase -i -10 > $ git rebase -i -n -10 The syntax would certainly imply a different semantics from giving HEAD~10. How would you compute the set of commits to rebase sanely when you have merges after your 10th direct parent commit?