Re: [SCRIPT/RFC 0/3] git-commit --onto-parent (three-way merge, no working tree file changes)

[Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>]

Hi Alexei,

On 09/12/2017 03:18, Alexei Lozovsky wrote:
> 
> > Chris reported in this very topic[1] that sometimes, due to
> > conflicts with later commits, "checkout > commit > [checkout >]
> > rebase --onto" is "much easier to do", where "commit --fixup >
> > rebase -i" "breaks" (does not apply cleanly).
> 
> It was more of a rant about conflict resolution by rebase rather than
> a concern about modification time of files. While I'd prefer git to
> not touch the source tree unnecessarily, it's not really a big deal
> for me if it does and some parts of the project need to be rebuilt.

Nevertheless, I found it valuable in supporting the case where 
"commit --fixup > rebase -i" seems to require even more work than 
otherwise necessary :)

But thanks for clarifying, anyway, it does feel like `git rebase -i 
--autosquash` could be smarter in this regards, if `git rebase 
--onto` does it better...?

Even though your explanation seems clear, having a real, easily 
reproducible case would help as well, I guess.

> I kinda hoped that you may know this magic and incorporate it into 
> "commit --onto" which will allow to immediately get to the result of 
> the rebase:
> 
>   ---A---f!A---B'
> 
> without spelling it all manually.

If you mind enough to be bothered testing it out, might be even 
existing/initial state of originally proposed `git commit 
--onto-parent` script would work for you, as it does incorporate some 
trivial three-way merge resolution.

In your starting situation:

    ---A---B

... you would just do something like:

    git commit --onto-parent A

... hopefully ending up in the desired state (hopefully = conflicts 
automatically resolved):

    ---A---C---B'

You could even do this instead:

    git commit --onto-parent A --amend

... ending up with:

    ---A'---B'

... as that is basically what you wanted in the first place ;)

> (And yeah, I'm actually Alexei, not Chris. That was my MUA being
> dumb and using an old pseudonym than Google insists I'm called by.)

Ah, sorry for the confusion :)

Regards, Buga