From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27474C07E95 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9831610CC for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240612AbhGTPGZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:06:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58807 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241902AbhGTO47 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:56:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A12613881D; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:36:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=xUexY4ENvrJueGMxLYmdPY2pVui5ZB5Iz1LTp+ LSrPs=; b=gRkeIWAgy7TJhAuILsMf2GyyaExenjlUs3vahZ9OnnkkUPZx1SMpC7 ZizuN9Tk8BzAJfckA1PMv/RP5cTkDbYKsntj/keUTwtejfmVa04ID35JWgXpiLP3 soWqz25sjqamxoip3gINqbff4FK0T6WJOLeKPIqijr8+QFKXGPubk= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929AE13881B; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:36:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC8D913881A; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:36:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Sergey Organov Cc: Andy Zhang , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: why "git rebase" searching the duplicate patches in rather than in ? References: <87a6mhgxv4.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 08:36:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87a6mhgxv4.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (Sergey Organov's message of "Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:04:15 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4476D316-E970-11EB-B536-D5C30F5B5667-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Sergey Organov writes: > Similar problem should exist for explicitly specified that > might happen to have little in common with the current , right? I do not think so. Plain-vanilla rebase is to carry forward our changes on top of updated upstream, which means that there is x--x--x (side) / ---o---o---o---o---o---o (upstream) ^ (old upstream) inherently ancestry relationship between the old upstream and the current upstream when rebasing 'side' to 'upstream'. > I don't actually like this. You do not have to ;-) because I was not suggesting to change any existing behaviour. It was merely me thinking aloud, how I might do the feature if I were designing it from scratch now. > Overall, it seems that we should take the rather than > (that is still when --onto is not specified), and > apply the skipping logic from there, to whatever depth the merge-base > will give us. If it's already implemented this way, then only the manual > page needs to be fixed. Sounds sensible. I didn't check what the actual code does ;-)