From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] rebuash - squash/rebase in a single step
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqr2784alt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2cece7ff-49af-0cae-7cb8-7cc1821be1ca@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:37:39 -0400")
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/1/2019 2:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>
>>>> First, we create a (temporary) merge commit of both branches (M3)
>>>>
>>>> ------------
>>>> R1---R2---R3---R4---R5---R6---R7---M3
>>>> \ \ \ /
>>>> F1---F2---M1---F3---F4---M2---F5
>>>> ------------
>>>>
> ...
>> If M3 merge is always easier to manage than incremental stepwise
>> rebase of the topic, then doing the "git merge --reverse-squash"
>> would be a saner interface and also conceptually simpler.
>
> I agree that this would be a better way to expose this behavior,
> and likely the implementation could be very clean.
What I was sort-of hoping to get comments on was actually something
else.
Would there be cases where the merge M3 gets unmanageably complex
even if rebasing the feature commits one by one is relatively simple
(and how often would that happen)? "merge --squash" would not work
well (and extending the command to merge in a different direction
would not help) in such a situation, but "rebase -i" would work
much better (and "imerge" would, too).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-02 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-30 5:18 [RFC/PATCH 1/2] rebuash - squash/rebase in a single step Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-06-30 5:18 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/2] rebuash - support for status Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-06-30 5:28 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-06-30 6:53 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/2] rebuash - squash/rebase in a single step Jeff King
2019-06-30 15:09 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-06-30 22:39 ` Jeff King
2019-07-01 1:37 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-07-01 18:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-01 20:48 ` Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
2019-07-01 18:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-02 11:37 ` Derrick Stolee
2019-07-02 17:20 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-07-02 19:30 ` Johannes Sixt
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
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqr2784alt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=eantoranz@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=stolee@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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).