From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4461F516 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:46:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933146AbeFUUqI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:46:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:37849 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933018AbeFUUqI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:46:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id k6-v6so4516231wrp.4 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:46:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=yeuv0Imvnof6yMTpeiMUhTSLC83+x/lnwCSHt151DK4=; b=m1zqFS8fFdEjoFG9H/TVEOLfNSB31pHzD8GC3fqwbNGjrIdc7B/OkGSDzoyUeAQ2M/ KRijKGuqz+G8sqXZ4q9BG/xTV2KybasVWPk5HiGFLcJDpktP0lQJ8wzK45KxC8CYyb6t onXL+hhxOcYqP2fTzFKu4sz7R/3PRl9naKie90SmZjKoebtJ4hbE3mHOtfoD9NmAMUSH tlysap5yozXgZjz3+fGIczAwBufcyXTwFmo82MfuP7WyJiTfoxU3/zwmGyw9doKAO7b1 dwTSAGtQPOaPRfwGcvt1HyILEcHFa5LFnKBe6dDfPRgAy98v7ijPLplMVFSbGgCFzmNR u1Bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=yeuv0Imvnof6yMTpeiMUhTSLC83+x/lnwCSHt151DK4=; b=V4kSdnuIvKcGaTXxlmcdOI3mbzJWc7ALUHnxPYV7GATpNH0+CcPp3nTIltJQi6FvxR eLLY4l9bXqyl0LtyaUnXIRPiWw0dFA84YDhpi9WKYP0PWqI9pzFBACHe1llF4o82aKys ASi0hdQiPkDqnr4sK5BvOY49Cl0nEZfmhEzFXpBCT2s8u116wqoEnjkXfR/D+Plco2tK M7b2hIGk9ClHMBM3nX9TatV1SaiRflXl7h4X5LOEyN3sr23KKZ75JRIvXfMv3lV+vo0y Um5x0EouZCI1uFsb/ee+Kqs+QQcqRDUTMX4QOreZc8OI6aZnZlBTRJ+CfMMftlH23h8A DyUg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E06oFB2SuxkF7BgYDgLGsYaXz53gdKRC7DejP3NxJsGI5uCqJYH Dn9M21VPY1B/hpTm2PSKBNLiNOhE X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJLl/M/KghWyQ3Zw6yXvZiPP+g5MJ6rF4Rgn79OOMFWdwdqf+Jkm7ZbHeF9nqqDL5LdMP5DbQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc05:: with SMTP id i5-v6mr22818523wrr.157.1529613966640; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q1-v6sm2971815wrm.96.2018.06.21.13.46.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:46:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, sunshine@sunshineco.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] git-rebase.txt: address confusion between --no-ff vs --force-rebase References: <20180617055856.22838-1-newren@gmail.com> <20180621150023.23533-1-newren@gmail.com> <20180621150023.23533-7-newren@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:46:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180621150023.23533-7-newren@gmail.com> (Elijah Newren's message of "Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:00:22 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > rebase was taught the --force-rebase option in commit b2f82e05de ("Teach > rebase to rebase even if upstream is up to date", 2009-02-13). This flag > worked for the am and merge backends, but wasn't a valid option for the > interactive backend. > ... > INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS > -------------------- > > @@ -559,11 +549,6 @@ Other incompatible flag pairs: > BEHAVIORAL INCONSISTENCIES > -------------------------- > > - * --no-ff vs. --force-rebase > - > - These options are actually identical, though their description > - leads people to believe they might not be. Ah, I should have held off my review of 5/7 before reading this one. Perhaps we want to do this before the step 5/7 to reduce the churn?