From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Teach --no-ff option to 'rebase -i'. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:10:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA11B23.4090801@xiplink.com> References: <1268755735-20588-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <1268768556-32176-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <20100316214717.GA24880@progeny.tock> <4BA07DC7.9070502@viscovery.net> <4BA0FD5B.5090408@xiplink.com> <4BA1010E.8030908@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 17 19:09:22 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NrxgH-0006aR-Gy for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:09:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755327Ab0CQSJQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:09:16 -0400 Received: from smtp112.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.112]:58094 "EHLO smtp112.dfw.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753809Ab0CQSJP (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:09:15 -0400 Received: from relay1.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay1.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B4D4F1279A3C; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay1.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 0E3351279923; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) In-Reply-To: <4BA1010E.8030908@viscovery.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Sixt wrote: > Marc Branchaud schrieb: >> Johannes Sixt wrote: >>> If I were to re-merge topic into master a second time after this >>> situation, I would install a temporary graft that removes the second >>> parent of M and repeat the merge. After the graft is removed, the history >>> would look like this: >>> >>> B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] >>> / \ \ >>> A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] >>> >>> Are there any downsides? I don't know - I haven't thought it through. >> I'm not sure I follow how to create that graft. > > $ echo $(git rev-parse M M^) >> .git/info/grafts > >> But the original point (which I hadn't made clear) is that at least one of >> the topic's commits needs to change in some substantial way. So it's not >> just a straight re-merge but a new take on the topic. >> >> Consider that if the topic's first commit (B) needed to be rewritten then the >> repaired topic would contain only new commits and it could be merged into >> master without reverting the first merge's reversion. > > You don't need --ff nor --no-ff in this case. > >> What "rebase -i --no-ff" does is allow you to ensure that this will always be >> the case, even if you don't actually need to change the topic's first commit. > > But why do you base the reworked topic on A instead of U or later? I want the topic based on A so that I can merge it into other branches that are also based on A. > Or why don't you just mark the first commit as r(eword) and just exit the > editor; it would rewrite the commit and all subsequent ones will be > rewritten as well. Yes, that works just as well (at least until someone optimizes the reword command). > Never in my life would I have searched for a *option* > that achieves the goal. It is such a rare situation that we don't need an > option, do we? That's a more fundamental question. I don't feel strongly either way. The main advantage I see with having the option is that it codifies the process, with documentation and a unit test to help make sure it doesn't break. So if nobody wants the new option, I would then like to add a unit test to ensure that rebase's reword command doesn't get optimized (if such a test doesn't already exist), and maybe also add a note to the revert-a-faulty-merge howto. M.