From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6301F461 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 18:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726618AbfGASvD (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:51:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:54603 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726076AbfGASvD (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:51:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734BF6EED7; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:51:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3G1sxCHR2THVJvDA9g1C/tTK5O0=; b=gyzXOn GcVhrsuprX9ZvI3oeSw1xltEsN3hQ04Vtj7wY6YwhHwij2jLAbfm/pFCzr5RScoW b0ShNibigP4+mvz6q8pNWQi9mana44RDiGlD/9e9zdlv7AB05V25EQIr3Bzg+KJ3 K21c1gjFTXzlYoO42GyNFqqrvQ7dIdSW4t7NQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=FUNnNbH1hKjFzf4iGIii13QhF5lwqGf4 ooppg77ffm/t+8kuwymyKtziSM18R1VcvQSoUAGqAcb5UlbnTKJHU5yox7MC5tXs Ir1A6aNMYd9TqUmBeqLylz/LozxnGmPqCm8oUj15SmkZNA4KSzOdqOS19oRcBTXm qON2+GnwMbw= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8C46EED6; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:51:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 922A26EED1; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:50:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz Cc: Jeff King , Git List Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] rebuash - squash/rebase in a single step References: <20190630051816.8814-1-eantoranz@gmail.com> <20190630065358.GB31264@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190630223951.GB21696@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:50:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Edmundo Carmona Antoranz's message of "Sun, 30 Jun 2019 19:37:07 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2A28962C-9C31-11E9-A628-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Edmundo Carmona Antoranz writes: > Hmm... I as a gatekeeper would rather get either a straight line of > revisions for a feature with no merges (even if a final merge takes > care of solving conflicts with the upstream branch) or a single > revision (if I thought that the change is not worth having more than a > single revision). I'd ask the developer to rebase the whole thing and > give a straight line (with rebase -i or cherry-picks) or to give me a > single revision (where rebuash would come into the picture). That part is understandable, but is "rebase-and-squash" a tool intended to be used by the contributor to respond to that request? Wouldn't the developer just do git checkout topic git fetch git rebase [-i] [@{upstream}] git push [publish +topic] to update the topic and ask to be pulled again? The two steps in the middle may be "pull --rebase", but my point is I do not quite see where the new squash/rebase-in-a-single-step thing comes into this picture. There may be a different picture that it fits, but I do not think it is this one.