From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name>,
"Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
"Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
"Siddharth Asthana" <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts"
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:02:34 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqtsxzi7hx.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <753daaa4-e675-4d28-9c13-4f5ede0f3b47@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:05:02 +0100")
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2025, at 13:41, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> All looked sensible.
>>>>
>>>> The second one looked a bit sketchy, but that was the phrase used by
>>>> the log message for c4611130 (replay: add --contained to rebase
>>>> contained branches, 2023-11-24).
>>>
>>> How should `--contained` be documented?
>>
>> The text you added uses exactly the phrase used by the log message,
>> so the author of the feature apparently felt it is good enough ;-).
>>
>> It just felt that "contained in <revision-range>" is understandable
>> enough.
>
> “is [not]” presumably.
Actually, s/It felt/I was unsure/;-).
>> master..next? If it is the former, is it because the topmost
>> commit (i.e., the commit pointed at by the branch reference) is
>> the only thing that counts, and it indeed is master..next?
>
> It’s a somewhat complex case compared to what I think is the usual one:
> a non-merge range of commits without any patch-id-equivalents on the
> target (fingers crossed). And the setup without merges: two topic
> branches in the range gives the output I expect:
>
> git replay --contained --onto=target2 <range>
> update <top/second>
> update <bottom/first>
>
> I think the original phrasing is understandable. But we could add
> an example.
>
> For example, if the range contains five commits where a branch
> points to the newest commit and another branch points to the third
> commit ...
Alternatively, you can explicitly refer to "the tip of the branch";
that phrasing will be understood by people from both camps. Those
who considers that a "branch" consists of the commits between the
fork point and its tip, and those who thinks a "branch" is a fancy
name attached to one particular commit in the DAG that can move
around (typically forward). Those branches whose tips are within
the range are updated.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-09 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-07 17:55 [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] doc: replay: mention no output on conflicts kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] doc: replay: document --contained kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 17:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc: replay: link section using markup kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-07 21:58 ` [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" Junio C Hamano
2025-12-08 7:28 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-08 12:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-09 18:05 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-09 23:02 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2025-12-08 14:29 ` Toon Claes
2025-12-08 14:35 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-08 16:00 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-09 18:03 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-09 22:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-10 9:51 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-10 11:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-10 12:04 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-10 14:14 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-10 15:40 ` Elijah Newren
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 " kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] doc: replay: mention no output on conflicts kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] replay: improve --contained and add to doc kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-13 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] doc: replay: link section using markup kristofferhaugsbakk
2025-12-15 10:13 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" Phillip Wood
2025-12-15 11:59 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2025-12-16 0:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-16 14:25 ` Phillip Wood
2025-12-20 19:34 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqtsxzi7hx.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=code@khaugsbakk.name \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=siddharthasthana31@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).