2005-09-08 00:26:23 +00:00
|
|
|
git-rebase(1)
|
|
|
|
=============
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NAME
|
|
|
|
----
|
2016-03-01 22:49:58 +00:00
|
|
|
git-rebase - Reapply commits on top of another base tip
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SYNOPSIS
|
|
|
|
--------
|
2007-05-18 13:39:33 +00:00
|
|
|
[verse]
|
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27 05:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' [-i | --interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>]
|
|
|
|
[--onto <newbase> | --keep-base] [<upstream> [<branch>]]
|
2018-05-24 20:11:39 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' [-i | --interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>] [--onto <newbase>]
|
2009-01-02 22:28:29 +00:00
|
|
|
--root [<branch>]
|
2019-06-17 09:17:09 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit | --edit-todo | --show-current-patch)
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
If <branch> is specified, 'git rebase' will perform an automatic
|
2019-03-29 10:39:19 +00:00
|
|
|
`git switch <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
|
2007-02-17 09:31:50 +00:00
|
|
|
it remains on the current branch.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-10 01:54:02 +00:00
|
|
|
If <upstream> is not specified, the upstream configured in
|
2014-09-18 19:03:25 +00:00
|
|
|
branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge options will be used (see
|
|
|
|
linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is
|
|
|
|
assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current
|
|
|
|
branch does not have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort.
|
2011-02-10 01:54:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2007-02-17 09:31:50 +00:00
|
|
|
All changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not
|
|
|
|
in <upstream> are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set
|
2014-09-18 19:03:25 +00:00
|
|
|
of commits that would be shown by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`; or by
|
|
|
|
`git log 'fork_point'..HEAD`, if `--fork-point` is active (see the
|
|
|
|
description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the
|
|
|
|
`--root` option is specified.
|
2007-02-17 09:31:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The current branch is reset to <upstream>, or <newbase> if the
|
|
|
|
--onto option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as
|
2008-07-08 04:12:22 +00:00
|
|
|
`git reset --hard <upstream>` (or <newbase>). ORIG_HEAD is set
|
|
|
|
to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
|
2007-02-17 09:31:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The commits that were previously saved into the temporary area are
|
2007-10-15 04:47:30 +00:00
|
|
|
then reapplied to the current branch, one by one, in order. Note that
|
|
|
|
any commits in HEAD which introduce the same textual changes as a commit
|
|
|
|
in HEAD..<upstream> are omitted (i.e., a patch already accepted upstream
|
|
|
|
with a different commit message or timestamp will be skipped).
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being
|
|
|
|
completely automatic. You will have to resolve any such merge failure
|
2006-05-14 03:34:08 +00:00
|
|
|
and run `git rebase --continue`. Another option is to bypass the commit
|
2011-07-14 03:47:06 +00:00
|
|
|
that caused the merge failure with `git rebase --skip`. To check out the
|
2008-07-21 10:51:02 +00:00
|
|
|
original <branch> and remove the .git/rebase-apply working files, use the
|
|
|
|
command `git rebase --abort` instead.
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":
|
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
A---B---C topic
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
D---E---F---G master
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-18 00:25:30 +00:00
|
|
|
From this point, the result of either of the following commands:
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 06:09:04 +00:00
|
|
|
git rebase master
|
|
|
|
git rebase master topic
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
would be:
|
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
A'--B'--C' topic
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
D---E---F---G master
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-14 15:47:37 +00:00
|
|
|
*NOTE:* The latter form is just a short-hand of `git checkout topic`
|
|
|
|
followed by `git rebase master`. When rebase exits `topic` will
|
|
|
|
remain the checked-out branch.
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-15 04:47:30 +00:00
|
|
|
If the upstream branch already contains a change you have made (e.g.,
|
|
|
|
because you mailed a patch which was applied upstream), then that commit
|
2008-06-30 06:09:04 +00:00
|
|
|
will be skipped. For example, running `git rebase master` on the
|
2015-05-13 04:57:54 +00:00
|
|
|
following history (in which `A'` and `A` introduce the same set of changes,
|
2007-10-15 04:47:30 +00:00
|
|
|
but have different committer information):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
A---B---C topic
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
D---E---A'---F master
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
will result in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
B'---C' topic
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
D---E---A'---F master
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
Here is how you would transplant a topic branch based on one
|
|
|
|
branch to another, to pretend that you forked the topic branch
|
|
|
|
from the latter branch, using `rebase --onto`.
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
First let's assume your 'topic' is based on branch 'next'.
|
2008-09-24 09:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
For example, a feature developed in 'topic' depends on some
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
functionality which is found in 'next'.
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o next
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
o---o---o topic
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-24 09:51:27 +00:00
|
|
|
We want to make 'topic' forked from branch 'master'; for example,
|
|
|
|
because the functionality on which 'topic' depends was merged into the
|
|
|
|
more stable 'master' branch. We want our tree to look like this:
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
|
|
| \
|
|
|
|
| o'--o'--o' topic
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o next
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
------------
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
We can get this using the following command:
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 06:09:04 +00:00
|
|
|
git rebase --onto master next topic
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another example of --onto option is to rebase part of a
|
|
|
|
branch. If we have the following situation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
H---I---J topicB
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
E---F---G topicA
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
A---B---C---D master
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then the command
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 06:09:04 +00:00
|
|
|
git rebase --onto master topicA topicB
|
2006-11-06 18:12:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
would result in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
H'--I'--J' topicB
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
| E---F---G topicA
|
|
|
|
|/
|
|
|
|
A---B---C---D master
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is useful when topicB does not depend on topicA.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-05 20:21:06 +00:00
|
|
|
A range of commits could also be removed with rebase. If we have
|
|
|
|
the following situation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
E---F---G---H---I---J topicA
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then the command
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 06:09:04 +00:00
|
|
|
git rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA
|
2007-02-05 20:21:06 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
would result in the removal of commits F and G:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
E---H'---I'---J' topicA
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is useful if F and G were flawed in some way, or should not be
|
|
|
|
part of topicA. Note that the argument to --onto and the <upstream>
|
|
|
|
parameter can be any valid commit-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
In case of conflict, 'git rebase' will stop at the first problematic commit
|
|
|
|
and leave conflict markers in the tree. You can use 'git diff' to locate
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
the markers (<<<<<<) and make edits to resolve the conflict. For each
|
2013-01-21 19:17:53 +00:00
|
|
|
file you edit, you need to tell Git that the conflict has been resolved,
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
typically this would be done with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-17 09:43:42 +00:00
|
|
|
git add <filename>
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After resolving the conflict manually and updating the index with the
|
|
|
|
desired resolution, you can continue the rebasing process with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase --continue
|
2006-03-26 20:29:28 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
Alternatively, you can undo the 'git rebase' with
|
2006-03-26 20:29:28 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase --abort
|
2006-03-26 20:29:28 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
-------
|
2012-06-12 08:05:12 +00:00
|
|
|
--onto <newbase>::
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
Starting point at which to create the new commits. If the
|
|
|
|
--onto option is not specified, the starting point is
|
2007-02-05 20:21:06 +00:00
|
|
|
<upstream>. May be any valid commit, and not just an
|
|
|
|
existing branch name.
|
2010-06-01 15:16:42 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
2010-08-20 10:39:48 +00:00
|
|
|
As a special case, you may use "A\...B" as a shortcut for the
|
2010-06-01 15:16:42 +00:00
|
|
|
merge base of A and B if there is exactly one merge base. You can
|
|
|
|
leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD.
|
2006-02-22 01:10:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27 05:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
--keep-base::
|
|
|
|
Set the starting point at which to create the new commits to the
|
|
|
|
merge base of <upstream> <branch>. Running
|
|
|
|
'git rebase --keep-base <upstream> <branch>' is equivalent to
|
|
|
|
running 'git rebase --onto <upstream>... <upstream>'.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
This option is useful in the case where one is developing a feature on
|
|
|
|
top of an upstream branch. While the feature is being worked on, the
|
|
|
|
upstream branch may advance and it may not be the best idea to keep
|
|
|
|
rebasing on top of the upstream but to keep the base commit as-is.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
Although both this option and --fork-point find the merge base between
|
|
|
|
<upstream> and <branch>, this option uses the merge base as the _starting
|
|
|
|
point_ on which new commits will be created, whereas --fork-point uses
|
|
|
|
the merge base to determine the _set of commits_ which will be rebased.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-27 01:18:48 +00:00
|
|
|
<upstream>::
|
2007-02-05 20:21:06 +00:00
|
|
|
Upstream branch to compare against. May be any valid commit,
|
2011-02-10 01:54:02 +00:00
|
|
|
not just an existing branch name. Defaults to the configured
|
|
|
|
upstream for the current branch.
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-18 00:25:30 +00:00
|
|
|
<branch>::
|
2005-08-27 01:18:48 +00:00
|
|
|
Working branch; defaults to HEAD.
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
--continue::
|
|
|
|
Restart the rebasing process after having resolved a merge conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--abort::
|
2011-07-14 03:47:06 +00:00
|
|
|
Abort the rebase operation and reset HEAD to the original
|
|
|
|
branch. If <branch> was provided when the rebase operation was
|
|
|
|
started, then HEAD will be reset to <branch>. Otherwise HEAD
|
|
|
|
will be reset to where it was when the rebase operation was
|
|
|
|
started.
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-11-12 02:00:41 +00:00
|
|
|
--quit::
|
|
|
|
Abort the rebase operation but HEAD is not reset back to the
|
|
|
|
original branch. The index and working tree are also left
|
2020-04-28 09:31:31 +00:00
|
|
|
unchanged as a result. If a temporary stash entry was created
|
2020-05-05 13:00:59 +00:00
|
|
|
using --autostash, it will be saved to the stash list.
|
2016-11-12 02:00:41 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-07-09 18:24:38 +00:00
|
|
|
--apply::
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Use applying strategies to rebase (calling `git-am`
|
|
|
|
internally). This option may become a no-op in the future
|
|
|
|
once the merge backend handles everything the apply one does.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:34 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
|
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd
(git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the
behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner
cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses
another such corner case: commits which "become empty".
A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would
become empty due to a rebase:
* [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream
commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying
these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a
duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have
"already been applied" upstream.
* [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean
cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after
being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which
are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when
the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several
upstream commits.
Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found
upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case.
When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then
because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message
was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages
can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be
completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a
case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra
commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and
no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise.
For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also
be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't
quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were
not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining
the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will
likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or
spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run
that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may
have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to
adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to
add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create
an empty commit with the commit message as-is.
Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]:
WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that
is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour
is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an
existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one
whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable,
and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to
drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually
apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are
stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be
worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want
for these commits.
Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior:
--empty={drop,keep,ask}
with the definitions:
drop: drop commits which become empty
keep: keep commits which become empty
ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with
commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis
In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified,
pick defaults as follows:
explicitly interactive: ask
otherwise: drop
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 21:36:25 +00:00
|
|
|
--empty={drop,keep,ask}::
|
|
|
|
How to handle commits that are not empty to start and are not
|
|
|
|
clean cherry-picks of any upstream commit, but which become
|
|
|
|
empty after rebasing (because they contain a subset of already
|
|
|
|
upstream changes). With drop (the default), commits that
|
|
|
|
become empty are dropped. With keep, such commits are kept.
|
|
|
|
With ask (implied by --interactive), the rebase will halt when
|
|
|
|
an empty commit is applied allowing you to choose whether to
|
|
|
|
drop it, edit files more, or just commit the empty changes.
|
|
|
|
Other options, like --exec, will use the default of drop unless
|
|
|
|
-i/--interactive is explicitly specified.
|
|
|
|
+
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
Note that commits which start empty are kept (unless --no-keep-empty
|
|
|
|
is specified), and commits which are clean cherry-picks (as determined
|
2020-04-11 02:44:27 +00:00
|
|
|
by `git log --cherry-mark ...`) are detected and dropped as a
|
|
|
|
preliminary step (unless --reapply-cherry-picks is passed).
|
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd
(git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the
behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner
cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses
another such corner case: commits which "become empty".
A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would
become empty due to a rebase:
* [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream
commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying
these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a
duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have
"already been applied" upstream.
* [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean
cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after
being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which
are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when
the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several
upstream commits.
Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found
upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case.
When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then
because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message
was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages
can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be
completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a
case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra
commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and
no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise.
For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also
be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't
quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were
not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining
the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will
likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or
spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run
that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may
have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to
adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to
add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create
an empty commit with the commit message as-is.
Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]:
WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that
is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour
is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an
existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one
whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable,
and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to
drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually
apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are
stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be
worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want
for these commits.
Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior:
--empty={drop,keep,ask}
with the definitions:
drop: drop commits which become empty
keep: keep commits which become empty
ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with
commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis
In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified,
pick defaults as follows:
explicitly interactive: ask
otherwise: drop
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 21:36:25 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
--no-keep-empty::
|
2012-04-20 14:36:17 +00:00
|
|
|
--keep-empty::
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
Do not keep commits that start empty before the rebase
|
|
|
|
(i.e. that do not change anything from its parent) in the
|
|
|
|
result. The default is to keep commits which start empty,
|
|
|
|
since creating such commits requires passing the --allow-empty
|
|
|
|
override flag to `git commit`, signifying that a user is very
|
|
|
|
intentionally creating such a commit and thus wants to keep
|
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
Usage of this flag will probably be rare, since you can get rid of
|
|
|
|
commits that start empty by just firing up an interactive rebase and
|
|
|
|
removing the lines corresponding to the commits you don't want. This
|
|
|
|
flag exists as a convenient shortcut, such as for cases where external
|
|
|
|
tools generate many empty commits and you want them all removed.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
For commits which do not start empty but become empty after rebasing,
|
|
|
|
see the --empty flag.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2012-04-20 14:36:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-11 02:44:27 +00:00
|
|
|
--reapply-cherry-picks::
|
|
|
|
--no-reapply-cherry-picks::
|
|
|
|
Reapply all clean cherry-picks of any upstream commit instead
|
|
|
|
of preemptively dropping them. (If these commits then become
|
|
|
|
empty after rebasing, because they contain a subset of already
|
|
|
|
upstream changes, the behavior towards them is controlled by
|
|
|
|
the `--empty` flag.)
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
By default (or if `--no-reapply-cherry-picks` is given), these commits
|
|
|
|
will be automatically dropped. Because this necessitates reading all
|
|
|
|
upstream commits, this can be expensive in repos with a large number
|
|
|
|
of upstream commits that need to be read.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
`--reapply-cherry-picks` allows rebase to forgo reading all upstream
|
|
|
|
commits, potentially improving performance.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-02-04 20:08:13 +00:00
|
|
|
--allow-empty-message::
|
2020-01-16 06:14:15 +00:00
|
|
|
No-op. Rebasing commits with an empty message used to fail
|
|
|
|
and this option would override that behavior, allowing commits
|
|
|
|
with empty messages to be rebased. Now commits with an empty
|
|
|
|
message do not cause rebasing to halt.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2018-02-04 20:08:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-21 10:04:41 +00:00
|
|
|
--skip::
|
|
|
|
Restart the rebasing process by skipping the current patch.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-18 01:28:09 +00:00
|
|
|
--edit-todo::
|
|
|
|
Edit the todo list during an interactive rebase.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-02-11 09:43:27 +00:00
|
|
|
--show-current-patch::
|
|
|
|
Show the current patch in an interactive rebase or when rebase
|
2018-02-11 09:43:28 +00:00
|
|
|
is stopped because of conflicts. This is the equivalent of
|
|
|
|
`git show REBASE_HEAD`.
|
2018-02-11 09:43:27 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-08 01:36:09 +00:00
|
|
|
-m::
|
|
|
|
--merge::
|
2006-06-21 10:04:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Use merging strategies to rebase. When the recursive (default) merge
|
|
|
|
strategy is used, this allows rebase to be aware of renames on the
|
2020-02-15 21:36:40 +00:00
|
|
|
upstream side. This is the default.
|
2009-11-15 18:25:31 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
Note that a rebase merge works by replaying each commit from the working
|
|
|
|
branch on top of the <upstream> branch. Because of this, when a merge
|
|
|
|
conflict happens, the side reported as 'ours' is the so-far rebased
|
|
|
|
series, starting with <upstream>, and 'theirs' is the working branch. In
|
|
|
|
other words, the sides are swapped.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2006-06-21 10:04:41 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-08 01:36:09 +00:00
|
|
|
-s <strategy>::
|
|
|
|
--strategy=<strategy>::
|
2009-05-21 09:47:07 +00:00
|
|
|
Use the given merge strategy.
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
If there is no `-s` option 'git merge-recursive' is used
|
2009-11-15 18:25:31 +00:00
|
|
|
instead. This implies --merge.
|
|
|
|
+
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
Because 'git rebase' replays each commit from the working branch
|
2009-11-15 18:25:31 +00:00
|
|
|
on top of the <upstream> branch using the given strategy, using
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
the 'ours' strategy simply empties all patches from the <branch>,
|
2009-11-15 18:25:31 +00:00
|
|
|
which makes little sense.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2006-06-21 10:04:41 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-28 22:04:29 +00:00
|
|
|
-X <strategy-option>::
|
|
|
|
--strategy-option=<strategy-option>::
|
|
|
|
Pass the <strategy-option> through to the merge strategy.
|
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-04-26 08:51:57 +00:00
|
|
|
This implies `--merge` and, if no strategy has been
|
2010-07-28 22:04:29 +00:00
|
|
|
specified, `-s recursive`. Note the reversal of 'ours' and
|
2012-07-14 22:20:36 +00:00
|
|
|
'theirs' as noted above for the `-m` option.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2010-07-28 22:04:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-03-14 19:12:32 +00:00
|
|
|
--rerere-autoupdate::
|
|
|
|
--no-rerere-autoupdate::
|
|
|
|
Allow the rerere mechanism to update the index with the
|
|
|
|
result of auto-conflict resolution if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
2014-02-10 01:03:37 +00:00
|
|
|
-S[<keyid>]::
|
|
|
|
--gpg-sign[=<keyid>]::
|
2020-04-03 10:28:02 +00:00
|
|
|
--no-gpg-sign::
|
2015-09-19 07:47:50 +00:00
|
|
|
GPG-sign commits. The `keyid` argument is optional and
|
|
|
|
defaults to the committer identity; if specified, it must be
|
2020-04-03 10:28:02 +00:00
|
|
|
stuck to the option without a space. `--no-gpg-sign` is useful to
|
|
|
|
countermand both `commit.gpgSign` configuration variable, and
|
|
|
|
earlier `--gpg-sign`.
|
2014-02-10 01:03:37 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-06-16 22:33:01 +00:00
|
|
|
-q::
|
|
|
|
--quiet::
|
|
|
|
Be quiet. Implies --no-stat.
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-08 01:36:09 +00:00
|
|
|
-v::
|
|
|
|
--verbose::
|
2009-03-01 22:11:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Be verbose. Implies --stat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--stat::
|
|
|
|
Show a diffstat of what changed upstream since the last rebase. The
|
|
|
|
diffstat is also controlled by the configuration option rebase.stat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-n::
|
|
|
|
--no-stat::
|
|
|
|
Do not show a diffstat as part of the rebase process.
|
2006-10-03 16:29:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-10-13 23:17:16 +00:00
|
|
|
--no-verify::
|
|
|
|
This option bypasses the pre-rebase hook. See also linkgit:githooks[5].
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-22 20:21:01 +00:00
|
|
|
--verify::
|
|
|
|
Allows the pre-rebase hook to run, which is the default. This option can
|
|
|
|
be used to override --no-verify. See also linkgit:githooks[5].
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-08 13:57:08 +00:00
|
|
|
-C<n>::
|
|
|
|
Ensure at least <n> lines of surrounding context match before
|
|
|
|
and after each change. When fewer lines of surrounding
|
|
|
|
context exist they all must match. By default no context is
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
ever ignored. Implies --apply.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2007-02-08 13:57:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
git-rebase.txt: address confusion between --no-ff vs --force-rebase
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.
rebase was taught the --no-ff option for interactive rebases in commit
b499549401cb ("Teach rebase the --no-ff option.", 2010-03-24), to do the
exact same thing as --force-rebase does for non-interactive rebases. This
commit explicitly documented the fact that --force-rebase was incompatible
with --interactive, though it made --no-ff a synonym for --force-rebase
for non-interactive rebases. The choice of a new option was based on the
fact that "force rebase" didn't sound like an appropriate term for the
interactive machinery.
In commit 6bb4e485cff8 ("rebase: align variable names", 2011-02-06), the
separate parsing of command line options in the different rebase scripts
was removed, and whether on accident or because the author noticed that
these options did the same thing, the options became synonyms and both
were accepted by all three rebase types.
In commit 2d26d533a012 ("Documentation/git-rebase.txt: -f forces a rebase
that would otherwise be a no-op", 2014-08-12), which reworded the
description of the --force-rebase option, the (no-longer correct) sentence
stating that --force-rebase was incompatible with --interactive was
finally removed.
Finally, as explained at
https://public-inbox.org/git/98279912-0f52-969d-44a6-22242039387f@xiplink.com
In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I
proposed teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase
instead of adding a new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as
the better user interface design [3], because an interactive rebase
can't be "forced" to run.
We have accepted both --no-ff and --force-rebase as full synonyms for all
three rebase types for over seven years. Documenting them differently
and in ways that suggest they might not be quite synonyms simply leads to
confusion. Adjust the documentation to match reality.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-06-27 07:23:15 +00:00
|
|
|
--no-ff::
|
2009-03-18 20:53:39 +00:00
|
|
|
--force-rebase::
|
git-rebase.txt: address confusion between --no-ff vs --force-rebase
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.
rebase was taught the --no-ff option for interactive rebases in commit
b499549401cb ("Teach rebase the --no-ff option.", 2010-03-24), to do the
exact same thing as --force-rebase does for non-interactive rebases. This
commit explicitly documented the fact that --force-rebase was incompatible
with --interactive, though it made --no-ff a synonym for --force-rebase
for non-interactive rebases. The choice of a new option was based on the
fact that "force rebase" didn't sound like an appropriate term for the
interactive machinery.
In commit 6bb4e485cff8 ("rebase: align variable names", 2011-02-06), the
separate parsing of command line options in the different rebase scripts
was removed, and whether on accident or because the author noticed that
these options did the same thing, the options became synonyms and both
were accepted by all three rebase types.
In commit 2d26d533a012 ("Documentation/git-rebase.txt: -f forces a rebase
that would otherwise be a no-op", 2014-08-12), which reworded the
description of the --force-rebase option, the (no-longer correct) sentence
stating that --force-rebase was incompatible with --interactive was
finally removed.
Finally, as explained at
https://public-inbox.org/git/98279912-0f52-969d-44a6-22242039387f@xiplink.com
In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I
proposed teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase
instead of adding a new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as
the better user interface design [3], because an interactive rebase
can't be "forced" to run.
We have accepted both --no-ff and --force-rebase as full synonyms for all
three rebase types for over seven years. Documenting them differently
and in ways that suggest they might not be quite synonyms simply leads to
confusion. Adjust the documentation to match reality.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-06-27 07:23:15 +00:00
|
|
|
-f::
|
|
|
|
Individually replay all rebased commits instead of fast-forwarding
|
|
|
|
over the unchanged ones. This ensures that the entire history of
|
|
|
|
the rebased branch is composed of new commits.
|
2010-03-24 20:34:04 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
git-rebase.txt: address confusion between --no-ff vs --force-rebase
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.
rebase was taught the --no-ff option for interactive rebases in commit
b499549401cb ("Teach rebase the --no-ff option.", 2010-03-24), to do the
exact same thing as --force-rebase does for non-interactive rebases. This
commit explicitly documented the fact that --force-rebase was incompatible
with --interactive, though it made --no-ff a synonym for --force-rebase
for non-interactive rebases. The choice of a new option was based on the
fact that "force rebase" didn't sound like an appropriate term for the
interactive machinery.
In commit 6bb4e485cff8 ("rebase: align variable names", 2011-02-06), the
separate parsing of command line options in the different rebase scripts
was removed, and whether on accident or because the author noticed that
these options did the same thing, the options became synonyms and both
were accepted by all three rebase types.
In commit 2d26d533a012 ("Documentation/git-rebase.txt: -f forces a rebase
that would otherwise be a no-op", 2014-08-12), which reworded the
description of the --force-rebase option, the (no-longer correct) sentence
stating that --force-rebase was incompatible with --interactive was
finally removed.
Finally, as explained at
https://public-inbox.org/git/98279912-0f52-969d-44a6-22242039387f@xiplink.com
In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I
proposed teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase
instead of adding a new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as
the better user interface design [3], because an interactive rebase
can't be "forced" to run.
We have accepted both --no-ff and --force-rebase as full synonyms for all
three rebase types for over seven years. Documenting them differently
and in ways that suggest they might not be quite synonyms simply leads to
confusion. Adjust the documentation to match reality.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-06-27 07:23:15 +00:00
|
|
|
You may find this helpful after reverting a topic branch merge, as this option
|
|
|
|
recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so it can be remerged
|
|
|
|
successfully without needing to "revert the reversion" (see the
|
|
|
|
link:howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.html[revert-a-faulty-merge How-To] for
|
|
|
|
details).
|
2009-03-18 20:53:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2013-12-09 23:16:16 +00:00
|
|
|
--fork-point::
|
|
|
|
--no-fork-point::
|
2014-09-18 19:03:25 +00:00
|
|
|
Use reflog to find a better common ancestor between <upstream>
|
|
|
|
and <branch> when calculating which commits have been
|
|
|
|
introduced by <branch>.
|
2013-12-09 23:16:16 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
2014-09-18 19:03:25 +00:00
|
|
|
When --fork-point is active, 'fork_point' will be used instead of
|
|
|
|
<upstream> to calculate the set of commits to rebase, where
|
|
|
|
'fork_point' is the result of `git merge-base --fork-point <upstream>
|
|
|
|
<branch>` command (see linkgit:git-merge-base[1]). If 'fork_point'
|
|
|
|
ends up being empty, the <upstream> will be used as a fallback.
|
|
|
|
+
|
2020-04-27 17:59:49 +00:00
|
|
|
If <upstream> is given on the command line, then the default is
|
|
|
|
`--no-fork-point`, otherwise the default is `--fork-point`.
|
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27 05:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
If your branch was based on <upstream> but <upstream> was rewound and
|
|
|
|
your branch contains commits which were dropped, this option can be used
|
|
|
|
with `--keep-base` in order to drop those commits from your branch.
|
2020-04-27 17:59:49 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2013-12-09 23:16:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-08-04 11:16:49 +00:00
|
|
|
--ignore-whitespace::
|
2020-07-13 10:10:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Ignore whitespace differences when trying to reconcile
|
|
|
|
differences. Currently, each backend implements an approximation of
|
|
|
|
this behavior:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
apply backend: When applying a patch, ignore changes in whitespace in
|
|
|
|
context lines. Unfortunately, this means that if the "old" lines being
|
|
|
|
replaced by the patch differ only in whitespace from the existing
|
|
|
|
file, you will get a merge conflict instead of a successful patch
|
|
|
|
application.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
merge backend: Treat lines with only whitespace changes as unchanged
|
|
|
|
when merging. Unfortunately, this means that any patch hunks that were
|
|
|
|
intended to modify whitespace and nothing else will be dropped, even
|
|
|
|
if the other side had no changes that conflicted.
|
|
|
|
|
2009-02-28 18:42:02 +00:00
|
|
|
--whitespace=<option>::
|
2020-07-13 10:10:41 +00:00
|
|
|
This flag is passed to the 'git apply' program
|
2007-12-29 06:20:38 +00:00
|
|
|
(see linkgit:git-apply[1]) that applies the patch.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Implies --apply.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2007-09-07 14:20:50 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-18 20:53:49 +00:00
|
|
|
--committer-date-is-author-date::
|
2020-08-17 17:40:02 +00:00
|
|
|
Instead of using the current time as the committer date, use
|
|
|
|
the author date of the commit being rebased as the committer
|
|
|
|
date. This option implies `--force-rebase`.
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-18 20:53:49 +00:00
|
|
|
--ignore-date::
|
2020-08-17 17:40:04 +00:00
|
|
|
--reset-author-date::
|
2020-08-17 17:40:03 +00:00
|
|
|
Instead of using the author date of the original commit, use
|
|
|
|
the current time as the author date of the rebased commit. This
|
|
|
|
option implies `--force-rebase`.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2009-03-18 20:53:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-18 09:29:05 +00:00
|
|
|
--signoff::
|
Documentation: stylistically normalize references to Signed-off-by:
Ted reported an old typo in the git-commit.txt and merge-options.txt.
Namely, the phrase "Signed-off-by line" was used without either a
definite nor indefinite article.
Upon examination, it seems that the documentation (including items in
Documentation/, but also option help strings) have been quite
inconsistent on usage when referring to `Signed-off-by`.
First, very few places used a definite or indefinite article with the
phrase "Signed-off-by line", but that was the initial typo that led
to this investigation. So, normalize using either an indefinite or
definite article consistently.
The original phrasing, in Commit 3f971fc425b (Documentation updates,
2005-08-14), is "Add Signed-off-by line". Commit 6f855371a53 (Add
--signoff, --check, and long option-names. 2005-12-09) switched to
using "Add `Signed-off-by:` line", but didn't normalize the former
commit to match. Later commits seem to have cut and pasted from one
or the other, which is likely how the usage became so inconsistent.
Junio stated on the git mailing list in
<xmqqy2k1dfoh.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com> a preference to leave off
the colon. Thus, prefer `Signed-off-by` (with backticks) for the
documentation files and Signed-off-by (without backticks) for option
help strings.
Additionally, Junio argued that "trailer" is now the standard term to
refer to `Signed-off-by`, saying that "becomes plenty clear that we
are not talking about any random line in the log message". As such,
prefer "trailer" over "line" anywhere the former word fits.
However, leave alone those few places in documentation that use
Signed-off-by to refer to the process (rather than the specific
trailer), or in places where mail headers are generally discussed in
comparison with Signed-off-by.
Reported-by: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org>
Acked-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-10-20 01:03:55 +00:00
|
|
|
Add a `Signed-off-by` trailer to all the rebased commits. Note
|
2018-03-20 11:10:55 +00:00
|
|
|
that if `--interactive` is given then only commits marked to be
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
picked, edited or reworded will have the trailer added.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2017-04-18 09:29:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-08 01:36:09 +00:00
|
|
|
-i::
|
|
|
|
--interactive::
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
Make a list of the commits which are about to be rebased. Let the
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
user edit that list before rebasing. This mode can also be used to
|
|
|
|
split commits (see SPLITTING COMMITS below).
|
2015-06-13 16:26:58 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
The commit list format can be changed by setting the configuration option
|
|
|
|
rebase.instructionFormat. A customized instruction format will automatically
|
|
|
|
have the long commit hash prepended to the format.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
rebase: introduce the --rebase-merges option
Once upon a time, this here developer thought: wouldn't it be nice if,
say, Git for Windows' patches on top of core Git could be represented as
a thicket of branches, and be rebased on top of core Git in order to
maintain a cherry-pick'able set of patch series?
The original attempt to answer this was: git rebase --preserve-merges.
However, that experiment was never intended as an interactive option,
and it only piggy-backed on git rebase --interactive because that
command's implementation looked already very, very familiar: it was
designed by the same person who designed --preserve-merges: yours truly.
Some time later, some other developer (I am looking at you, Andreas!
;-)) decided that it would be a good idea to allow --preserve-merges to
be combined with --interactive (with caveats!) and the Git maintainer
(well, the interim Git maintainer during Junio's absence, that is)
agreed, and that is when the glamor of the --preserve-merges design
started to fall apart rather quickly and unglamorously.
The reason? In --preserve-merges mode, the parents of a merge commit (or
for that matter, of *any* commit) were not stated explicitly, but were
*implied* by the commit name passed to the `pick` command.
This made it impossible, for example, to reorder commits. Not to mention
to move commits between branches or, deity forbid, to split topic branches
into two.
Alas, these shortcomings also prevented that mode (whose original
purpose was to serve Git for Windows' needs, with the additional hope
that it may be useful to others, too) from serving Git for Windows'
needs.
Five years later, when it became really untenable to have one unwieldy,
big hodge-podge patch series of partly related, partly unrelated patches
in Git for Windows that was rebased onto core Git's tags from time to
time (earning the undeserved wrath of the developer of the ill-fated
git-remote-hg series that first obsoleted Git for Windows' competing
approach, only to be abandoned without maintainer later) was really
untenable, the "Git garden shears" were born [*1*/*2*]: a script,
piggy-backing on top of the interactive rebase, that would first
determine the branch topology of the patches to be rebased, create a
pseudo todo list for further editing, transform the result into a real
todo list (making heavy use of the `exec` command to "implement" the
missing todo list commands) and finally recreate the patch series on
top of the new base commit.
That was in 2013. And it took about three weeks to come up with the
design and implement it as an out-of-tree script. Needless to say, the
implementation needed quite a few years to stabilize, all the while the
design itself proved itself sound.
With this patch, the goodness of the Git garden shears comes to `git
rebase -i` itself. Passing the `--rebase-merges` option will generate
a todo list that can be understood readily, and where it is obvious
how to reorder commits. New branches can be introduced by inserting
`label` commands and calling `merge <label>`. And once this mode will
have become stable and universally accepted, we can deprecate the design
mistake that was `--preserve-merges`.
Link *1*:
https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/blob/master/share/msysGit/shears.sh
Link *2*:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/shears.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:04 +00:00
|
|
|
-r::
|
rebase -i: introduce --rebase-merges=[no-]rebase-cousins
When running `git rebase --rebase-merges` non-interactively with an
ancestor of HEAD as <upstream> (or leaving the todo list unmodified),
we would ideally recreate the exact same commits as before the rebase.
However, if there are commits in the commit range <upstream>.. that do not
have <upstream> as direct ancestor (i.e. if `git log <upstream>..` would
show commits that are omitted by `git log --ancestry-path <upstream>..`),
this is currently not the case: we would turn them into commits that have
<upstream> as direct ancestor.
Let's illustrate that with a diagram:
C
/ \
A - B - E - F
\ /
D
Currently, after running `git rebase -i --rebase-merges B`, the new branch
structure would be (pay particular attention to the commit `D`):
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
D'
This is not really preserving the branch topology from before! The
reason is that the commit `D` does not have `B` as ancestor, and
therefore it gets rebased onto `B`.
This is unintuitive behavior. Even worse, when recreating branch
structure, most use cases would appear to want cousins *not* to be
rebased onto the new base commit. For example, Git for Windows (the
heaviest user of the Git garden shears, which served as the blueprint
for --rebase-merges) frequently merges branches from `next` early, and
these branches certainly do *not* want to be rebased. In the example
above, the desired outcome would look like this:
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
-- D' --
Let's introduce the term "cousins" for such commits ("D" in the
example), and let's not rebase them by default. For hypothetical
use cases where cousins *do* need to be rebased, `git rebase
--rebase=merges=rebase-cousins` needs to be used.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:40 +00:00
|
|
|
--rebase-merges[=(rebase-cousins|no-rebase-cousins)]::
|
rebase: introduce the --rebase-merges option
Once upon a time, this here developer thought: wouldn't it be nice if,
say, Git for Windows' patches on top of core Git could be represented as
a thicket of branches, and be rebased on top of core Git in order to
maintain a cherry-pick'able set of patch series?
The original attempt to answer this was: git rebase --preserve-merges.
However, that experiment was never intended as an interactive option,
and it only piggy-backed on git rebase --interactive because that
command's implementation looked already very, very familiar: it was
designed by the same person who designed --preserve-merges: yours truly.
Some time later, some other developer (I am looking at you, Andreas!
;-)) decided that it would be a good idea to allow --preserve-merges to
be combined with --interactive (with caveats!) and the Git maintainer
(well, the interim Git maintainer during Junio's absence, that is)
agreed, and that is when the glamor of the --preserve-merges design
started to fall apart rather quickly and unglamorously.
The reason? In --preserve-merges mode, the parents of a merge commit (or
for that matter, of *any* commit) were not stated explicitly, but were
*implied* by the commit name passed to the `pick` command.
This made it impossible, for example, to reorder commits. Not to mention
to move commits between branches or, deity forbid, to split topic branches
into two.
Alas, these shortcomings also prevented that mode (whose original
purpose was to serve Git for Windows' needs, with the additional hope
that it may be useful to others, too) from serving Git for Windows'
needs.
Five years later, when it became really untenable to have one unwieldy,
big hodge-podge patch series of partly related, partly unrelated patches
in Git for Windows that was rebased onto core Git's tags from time to
time (earning the undeserved wrath of the developer of the ill-fated
git-remote-hg series that first obsoleted Git for Windows' competing
approach, only to be abandoned without maintainer later) was really
untenable, the "Git garden shears" were born [*1*/*2*]: a script,
piggy-backing on top of the interactive rebase, that would first
determine the branch topology of the patches to be rebased, create a
pseudo todo list for further editing, transform the result into a real
todo list (making heavy use of the `exec` command to "implement" the
missing todo list commands) and finally recreate the patch series on
top of the new base commit.
That was in 2013. And it took about three weeks to come up with the
design and implement it as an out-of-tree script. Needless to say, the
implementation needed quite a few years to stabilize, all the while the
design itself proved itself sound.
With this patch, the goodness of the Git garden shears comes to `git
rebase -i` itself. Passing the `--rebase-merges` option will generate
a todo list that can be understood readily, and where it is obvious
how to reorder commits. New branches can be introduced by inserting
`label` commands and calling `merge <label>`. And once this mode will
have become stable and universally accepted, we can deprecate the design
mistake that was `--preserve-merges`.
Link *1*:
https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/blob/master/share/msysGit/shears.sh
Link *2*:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/shears.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:04 +00:00
|
|
|
By default, a rebase will simply drop merge commits from the todo
|
|
|
|
list, and put the rebased commits into a single, linear branch.
|
|
|
|
With `--rebase-merges`, the rebase will instead try to preserve
|
|
|
|
the branching structure within the commits that are to be rebased,
|
|
|
|
by recreating the merge commits. Any resolved merge conflicts or
|
|
|
|
manual amendments in these merge commits will have to be
|
|
|
|
resolved/re-applied manually.
|
|
|
|
+
|
rebase -i: introduce --rebase-merges=[no-]rebase-cousins
When running `git rebase --rebase-merges` non-interactively with an
ancestor of HEAD as <upstream> (or leaving the todo list unmodified),
we would ideally recreate the exact same commits as before the rebase.
However, if there are commits in the commit range <upstream>.. that do not
have <upstream> as direct ancestor (i.e. if `git log <upstream>..` would
show commits that are omitted by `git log --ancestry-path <upstream>..`),
this is currently not the case: we would turn them into commits that have
<upstream> as direct ancestor.
Let's illustrate that with a diagram:
C
/ \
A - B - E - F
\ /
D
Currently, after running `git rebase -i --rebase-merges B`, the new branch
structure would be (pay particular attention to the commit `D`):
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
D'
This is not really preserving the branch topology from before! The
reason is that the commit `D` does not have `B` as ancestor, and
therefore it gets rebased onto `B`.
This is unintuitive behavior. Even worse, when recreating branch
structure, most use cases would appear to want cousins *not* to be
rebased onto the new base commit. For example, Git for Windows (the
heaviest user of the Git garden shears, which served as the blueprint
for --rebase-merges) frequently merges branches from `next` early, and
these branches certainly do *not* want to be rebased. In the example
above, the desired outcome would look like this:
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
-- D' --
Let's introduce the term "cousins" for such commits ("D" in the
example), and let's not rebase them by default. For hypothetical
use cases where cousins *do* need to be rebased, `git rebase
--rebase=merges=rebase-cousins` needs to be used.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:40 +00:00
|
|
|
By default, or when `no-rebase-cousins` was specified, commits which do not
|
|
|
|
have `<upstream>` as direct ancestor will keep their original branch point,
|
2019-02-28 02:43:15 +00:00
|
|
|
i.e. commits that would be excluded by linkgit:git-log[1]'s
|
rebase -i: introduce --rebase-merges=[no-]rebase-cousins
When running `git rebase --rebase-merges` non-interactively with an
ancestor of HEAD as <upstream> (or leaving the todo list unmodified),
we would ideally recreate the exact same commits as before the rebase.
However, if there are commits in the commit range <upstream>.. that do not
have <upstream> as direct ancestor (i.e. if `git log <upstream>..` would
show commits that are omitted by `git log --ancestry-path <upstream>..`),
this is currently not the case: we would turn them into commits that have
<upstream> as direct ancestor.
Let's illustrate that with a diagram:
C
/ \
A - B - E - F
\ /
D
Currently, after running `git rebase -i --rebase-merges B`, the new branch
structure would be (pay particular attention to the commit `D`):
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
D'
This is not really preserving the branch topology from before! The
reason is that the commit `D` does not have `B` as ancestor, and
therefore it gets rebased onto `B`.
This is unintuitive behavior. Even worse, when recreating branch
structure, most use cases would appear to want cousins *not* to be
rebased onto the new base commit. For example, Git for Windows (the
heaviest user of the Git garden shears, which served as the blueprint
for --rebase-merges) frequently merges branches from `next` early, and
these branches certainly do *not* want to be rebased. In the example
above, the desired outcome would look like this:
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
-- D' --
Let's introduce the term "cousins" for such commits ("D" in the
example), and let's not rebase them by default. For hypothetical
use cases where cousins *do* need to be rebased, `git rebase
--rebase=merges=rebase-cousins` needs to be used.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:40 +00:00
|
|
|
`--ancestry-path` option will keep their original ancestry by default. If
|
|
|
|
the `rebase-cousins` mode is turned on, such commits are instead rebased
|
|
|
|
onto `<upstream>` (or `<onto>`, if specified).
|
|
|
|
+
|
2019-03-11 19:57:35 +00:00
|
|
|
The `--rebase-merges` mode is similar in spirit to the deprecated
|
2019-11-11 23:21:37 +00:00
|
|
|
`--preserve-merges` but works with interactive rebases,
|
|
|
|
where commits can be reordered, inserted and dropped at will.
|
rebase: introduce the --rebase-merges option
Once upon a time, this here developer thought: wouldn't it be nice if,
say, Git for Windows' patches on top of core Git could be represented as
a thicket of branches, and be rebased on top of core Git in order to
maintain a cherry-pick'able set of patch series?
The original attempt to answer this was: git rebase --preserve-merges.
However, that experiment was never intended as an interactive option,
and it only piggy-backed on git rebase --interactive because that
command's implementation looked already very, very familiar: it was
designed by the same person who designed --preserve-merges: yours truly.
Some time later, some other developer (I am looking at you, Andreas!
;-)) decided that it would be a good idea to allow --preserve-merges to
be combined with --interactive (with caveats!) and the Git maintainer
(well, the interim Git maintainer during Junio's absence, that is)
agreed, and that is when the glamor of the --preserve-merges design
started to fall apart rather quickly and unglamorously.
The reason? In --preserve-merges mode, the parents of a merge commit (or
for that matter, of *any* commit) were not stated explicitly, but were
*implied* by the commit name passed to the `pick` command.
This made it impossible, for example, to reorder commits. Not to mention
to move commits between branches or, deity forbid, to split topic branches
into two.
Alas, these shortcomings also prevented that mode (whose original
purpose was to serve Git for Windows' needs, with the additional hope
that it may be useful to others, too) from serving Git for Windows'
needs.
Five years later, when it became really untenable to have one unwieldy,
big hodge-podge patch series of partly related, partly unrelated patches
in Git for Windows that was rebased onto core Git's tags from time to
time (earning the undeserved wrath of the developer of the ill-fated
git-remote-hg series that first obsoleted Git for Windows' competing
approach, only to be abandoned without maintainer later) was really
untenable, the "Git garden shears" were born [*1*/*2*]: a script,
piggy-backing on top of the interactive rebase, that would first
determine the branch topology of the patches to be rebased, create a
pseudo todo list for further editing, transform the result into a real
todo list (making heavy use of the `exec` command to "implement" the
missing todo list commands) and finally recreate the patch series on
top of the new base commit.
That was in 2013. And it took about three weeks to come up with the
design and implement it as an out-of-tree script. Needless to say, the
implementation needed quite a few years to stabilize, all the while the
design itself proved itself sound.
With this patch, the goodness of the Git garden shears comes to `git
rebase -i` itself. Passing the `--rebase-merges` option will generate
a todo list that can be understood readily, and where it is obvious
how to reorder commits. New branches can be introduced by inserting
`label` commands and calling `merge <label>`. And once this mode will
have become stable and universally accepted, we can deprecate the design
mistake that was `--preserve-merges`.
Link *1*:
https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/blob/master/share/msysGit/shears.sh
Link *2*:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/shears.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:04 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
It is currently only possible to recreate the merge commits using the
|
|
|
|
`recursive` merge strategy; Different merge strategies can be used only via
|
|
|
|
explicit `exec git merge -s <strategy> [...]` commands.
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
See also REBASING MERGES and INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
rebase: introduce the --rebase-merges option
Once upon a time, this here developer thought: wouldn't it be nice if,
say, Git for Windows' patches on top of core Git could be represented as
a thicket of branches, and be rebased on top of core Git in order to
maintain a cherry-pick'able set of patch series?
The original attempt to answer this was: git rebase --preserve-merges.
However, that experiment was never intended as an interactive option,
and it only piggy-backed on git rebase --interactive because that
command's implementation looked already very, very familiar: it was
designed by the same person who designed --preserve-merges: yours truly.
Some time later, some other developer (I am looking at you, Andreas!
;-)) decided that it would be a good idea to allow --preserve-merges to
be combined with --interactive (with caveats!) and the Git maintainer
(well, the interim Git maintainer during Junio's absence, that is)
agreed, and that is when the glamor of the --preserve-merges design
started to fall apart rather quickly and unglamorously.
The reason? In --preserve-merges mode, the parents of a merge commit (or
for that matter, of *any* commit) were not stated explicitly, but were
*implied* by the commit name passed to the `pick` command.
This made it impossible, for example, to reorder commits. Not to mention
to move commits between branches or, deity forbid, to split topic branches
into two.
Alas, these shortcomings also prevented that mode (whose original
purpose was to serve Git for Windows' needs, with the additional hope
that it may be useful to others, too) from serving Git for Windows'
needs.
Five years later, when it became really untenable to have one unwieldy,
big hodge-podge patch series of partly related, partly unrelated patches
in Git for Windows that was rebased onto core Git's tags from time to
time (earning the undeserved wrath of the developer of the ill-fated
git-remote-hg series that first obsoleted Git for Windows' competing
approach, only to be abandoned without maintainer later) was really
untenable, the "Git garden shears" were born [*1*/*2*]: a script,
piggy-backing on top of the interactive rebase, that would first
determine the branch topology of the patches to be rebased, create a
pseudo todo list for further editing, transform the result into a real
todo list (making heavy use of the `exec` command to "implement" the
missing todo list commands) and finally recreate the patch series on
top of the new base commit.
That was in 2013. And it took about three weeks to come up with the
design and implement it as an out-of-tree script. Needless to say, the
implementation needed quite a few years to stabilize, all the while the
design itself proved itself sound.
With this patch, the goodness of the Git garden shears comes to `git
rebase -i` itself. Passing the `--rebase-merges` option will generate
a todo list that can be understood readily, and where it is obvious
how to reorder commits. New branches can be introduced by inserting
`label` commands and calling `merge <label>`. And once this mode will
have become stable and universally accepted, we can deprecate the design
mistake that was `--preserve-merges`.
Link *1*:
https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/blob/master/share/msysGit/shears.sh
Link *2*:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/shears.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-25 12:29:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-08 01:36:09 +00:00
|
|
|
-p::
|
|
|
|
--preserve-merges::
|
2019-03-11 19:57:35 +00:00
|
|
|
[DEPRECATED: use `--rebase-merges` instead] Recreate merge commits
|
|
|
|
instead of flattening the history by replaying commits a merge commit
|
|
|
|
introduces. Merge conflict resolutions or manual amendments to merge
|
|
|
|
commits are not preserved.
|
2010-06-01 01:43:35 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but combining it
|
|
|
|
with the `--interactive` option explicitly is generally not a good
|
|
|
|
idea unless you know what you are doing (see BUGS below).
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2010-06-01 01:43:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2012-06-12 08:05:12 +00:00
|
|
|
-x <cmd>::
|
|
|
|
--exec <cmd>::
|
|
|
|
Append "exec <cmd>" after each line creating a commit in the
|
|
|
|
final history. <cmd> will be interpreted as one or more shell
|
2018-10-10 08:53:56 +00:00
|
|
|
commands. Any command that fails will interrupt the rebase,
|
|
|
|
with exit code 1.
|
2012-06-12 08:05:12 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
You may execute several commands by either using one instance of `--exec`
|
|
|
|
with several commands:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
git rebase -i --exec "cmd1 && cmd2 && ..."
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
or by giving more than one `--exec`:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
git rebase -i --exec "cmd1" --exec "cmd2" --exec ...
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
If `--autosquash` is used, "exec" lines will not be appended for
|
|
|
|
the intermediate commits, and will only appear at the end of each
|
|
|
|
squash/fixup series.
|
2016-03-18 21:26:17 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but it can be run
|
|
|
|
without an explicit `--interactive`.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2007-06-25 17:59:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-02 22:28:29 +00:00
|
|
|
--root::
|
|
|
|
Rebase all commits reachable from <branch>, instead of
|
|
|
|
limiting them with an <upstream>. This allows you to rebase
|
2012-06-26 21:55:23 +00:00
|
|
|
the root commit(s) on a branch. When used with --onto, it
|
2009-01-02 22:28:29 +00:00
|
|
|
will skip changes already contained in <newbase> (instead of
|
2012-06-26 21:55:23 +00:00
|
|
|
<upstream>) whereas without --onto it will operate on every change.
|
|
|
|
When used together with both --onto and --preserve-merges,
|
|
|
|
'all' root commits will be rewritten to have <newbase> as parent
|
2009-01-02 22:28:29 +00:00
|
|
|
instead.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2009-01-02 22:28:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-12-08 03:13:14 +00:00
|
|
|
--autosquash::
|
2010-07-14 11:59:57 +00:00
|
|
|
--no-autosquash::
|
2021-03-15 07:54:36 +00:00
|
|
|
When the commit log message begins with "squash! ..." or "fixup! ..."
|
|
|
|
or "amend! ...", and there is already a commit in the todo list that
|
|
|
|
matches the same `...`, automatically modify the todo list of
|
|
|
|
`rebase -i`, so that the commit marked for squashing comes right after
|
|
|
|
the commit to be modified, and change the action of the moved commit
|
|
|
|
from `pick` to `squash` or `fixup` or `fixup -C` respectively. A commit
|
|
|
|
matches the `...` if the commit subject matches, or if the `...` refers
|
|
|
|
to the commit's hash. As a fall-back, partial matches of the commit
|
|
|
|
subject work, too. The recommended way to create fixup/amend/squash
|
|
|
|
commits is by using the `--fixup`, `--fixup=amend:` or `--fixup=reword:`
|
|
|
|
and `--squash` options respectively of linkgit:git-commit[1].
|
2009-12-08 03:13:14 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
2016-06-28 11:40:11 +00:00
|
|
|
If the `--autosquash` option is enabled by default using the
|
2015-03-11 20:32:45 +00:00
|
|
|
configuration variable `rebase.autoSquash`, this option can be
|
2010-07-14 11:59:57 +00:00
|
|
|
used to override and disable this setting.
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
2010-03-24 20:34:04 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-09-10 22:30:52 +00:00
|
|
|
--autostash::
|
|
|
|
--no-autostash::
|
2017-06-17 22:30:50 +00:00
|
|
|
Automatically create a temporary stash entry before the operation
|
2013-05-12 11:56:41 +00:00
|
|
|
begins, and apply it after the operation ends. This means
|
|
|
|
that you can run rebase on a dirty worktree. However, use
|
|
|
|
with care: the final stash application after a successful
|
|
|
|
rebase might result in non-trivial conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-12-10 19:04:58 +00:00
|
|
|
--reschedule-failed-exec::
|
|
|
|
--no-reschedule-failed-exec::
|
|
|
|
Automatically reschedule `exec` commands that failed. This only makes
|
|
|
|
sense in interactive mode (or when an `--exec` option was provided).
|
2021-04-09 08:01:38 +00:00
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
Even though this option applies once a rebase is started, it's set for
|
|
|
|
the whole rebase at the start based on either the
|
|
|
|
`rebase.rescheduleFailedExec` configuration (see linkgit:git-config[1]
|
|
|
|
or "CONFIGURATION" below) or whether this option is
|
|
|
|
provided. Otherwise an explicit `--no-reschedule-failed-exec` at the
|
|
|
|
start would be overridden by the presence of
|
|
|
|
`rebase.rescheduleFailedExec=true` configuration.
|
2018-12-10 19:04:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior,
modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by
re-implementing it on top of the latter.
Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the
recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge
strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is
not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and
git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and
instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c.
This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes:
* The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples)
* A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421)
* bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of
REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use;
this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with
the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to
know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903)
testcase modification notes:
t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation
t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect
--merge and --interactive to have the same output.
t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo!
t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
now REBASE-i.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 16:11:39 +00:00
|
|
|
The following options:
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
* --apply
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
* --whitespace
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* -C
|
|
|
|
|
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior,
modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by
re-implementing it on top of the latter.
Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the
recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge
strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is
not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and
git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and
instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c.
This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes:
* The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples)
* A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421)
* bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of
REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use;
this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with
the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to
know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903)
testcase modification notes:
t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation
t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect
--merge and --interactive to have the same output.
t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo!
t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
now REBASE-i.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 16:11:39 +00:00
|
|
|
are incompatible with the following options:
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* --merge
|
|
|
|
* --strategy
|
|
|
|
* --strategy-option
|
|
|
|
* --allow-empty-message
|
|
|
|
* --[no-]autosquash
|
|
|
|
* --rebase-merges
|
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges
|
|
|
|
* --interactive
|
|
|
|
* --exec
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
* --no-keep-empty
|
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd
(git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the
behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner
cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses
another such corner case: commits which "become empty".
A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would
become empty due to a rebase:
* [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream
commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying
these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a
duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have
"already been applied" upstream.
* [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean
cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after
being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which
are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when
the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several
upstream commits.
Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found
upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case.
When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then
because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message
was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages
can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be
completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a
case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra
commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and
no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise.
For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also
be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't
quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were
not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining
the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will
likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or
spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run
that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may
have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to
adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to
add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create
an empty commit with the commit message as-is.
Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]:
WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that
is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour
is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an
existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one
whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable,
and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to
drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually
apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are
stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be
worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want
for these commits.
Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior:
--empty={drop,keep,ask}
with the definitions:
drop: drop commits which become empty
keep: keep commits which become empty
ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with
commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis
In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified,
pick defaults as follows:
explicitly interactive: ask
otherwise: drop
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 21:36:25 +00:00
|
|
|
* --empty=
|
2020-04-11 02:44:27 +00:00
|
|
|
* --reapply-cherry-picks
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
* --edit-todo
|
|
|
|
* --root when used in combination with --onto
|
|
|
|
|
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior,
modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by
re-implementing it on top of the latter.
Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the
recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge
strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is
not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and
git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and
instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c.
This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes:
* The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples)
* A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421)
* bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of
REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use;
this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with
the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to
know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903)
testcase modification notes:
t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation
t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect
--merge and --interactive to have the same output.
t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo!
t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
now REBASE-i.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-12-11 16:11:39 +00:00
|
|
|
In addition, the following pairs of options are incompatible:
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --interactive
|
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --signoff
|
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges
|
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd
(git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the
behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner
cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses
another such corner case: commits which "become empty".
A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would
become empty due to a rebase:
* [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream
commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying
these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a
duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have
"already been applied" upstream.
* [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean
cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after
being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which
are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when
the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several
upstream commits.
Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found
upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case.
When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then
because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message
was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages
can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be
completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a
case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra
commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and
no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise.
For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also
be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't
quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were
not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining
the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will
likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or
spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run
that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may
have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to
adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to
add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create
an empty commit with the commit message as-is.
Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]:
WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that
is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour
is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an
existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one
whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable,
and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to
drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually
apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are
stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be
worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want
for these commits.
Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior:
--empty={drop,keep,ask}
with the definitions:
drop: drop commits which become empty
keep: keep commits which become empty
ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with
commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis
In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified,
pick defaults as follows:
explicitly interactive: ask
otherwise: drop
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 21:36:25 +00:00
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --empty=
|
2020-07-13 10:10:41 +00:00
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --ignore-whitespace
|
2020-08-17 17:40:02 +00:00
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --committer-date-is-author-date
|
2020-08-17 17:40:03 +00:00
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --ignore-date
|
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27 05:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
* --keep-base and --onto
|
|
|
|
* --keep-base and --root
|
2020-04-27 17:59:49 +00:00
|
|
|
* --fork-point and --root
|
2018-06-25 16:12:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-06-27 07:23:17 +00:00
|
|
|
BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
git rebase has two primary backends: apply and merge. (The apply
|
2020-03-28 19:12:00 +00:00
|
|
|
backend used to be known as the 'am' backend, but the name led to
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
confusion as it looks like a verb instead of a noun. Also, the merge
|
|
|
|
backend used to be known as the interactive backend, but it is now
|
|
|
|
used for non-interactive cases as well. Both were renamed based on
|
|
|
|
lower-level functionality that underpinned each.) There are some
|
|
|
|
subtle differences in how these two backends behave:
|
2018-06-27 07:23:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-12-03 17:34:49 +00:00
|
|
|
Empty commits
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2018-06-27 07:23:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The apply backend unfortunately drops intentionally empty commits, i.e.
|
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default
Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which
start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the
--keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior.
The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to
commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default,
2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is
often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that
commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there
directly applies here.
It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of
empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once
someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the
manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between
annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such
intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare,
which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend
to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason
for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that
allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so
that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with
--allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have
--keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not
included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure.
Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written
expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This
test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of
empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on
rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at
https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/
which noted
Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the
intent of the test cases.
and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added
had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe
most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as
many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general
how those flags should behave otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-15 21:36:24 +00:00
|
|
|
commits that started empty, though these are rare in practice. It
|
|
|
|
also drops commits that become empty and has no option for controlling
|
|
|
|
this behavior.
|
2018-06-27 07:23:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11 02:44:25 +00:00
|
|
|
The merge backend keeps intentionally empty commits by default (though
|
|
|
|
with -i they are marked as empty in the todo list editor, or they can
|
|
|
|
be dropped automatically with --no-keep-empty).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to the apply backend, by default the merge backend drops
|
|
|
|
commits that become empty unless -i/--interactive is specified (in
|
|
|
|
which case it stops and asks the user what to do). The merge backend
|
|
|
|
also has an --empty={drop,keep,ask} option for changing the behavior
|
|
|
|
of handling commits that become empty.
|
2018-06-27 07:23:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-12-03 17:34:49 +00:00
|
|
|
Directory rename detection
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
Due to the lack of accurate tree information (arising from
|
|
|
|
constructing fake ancestors with the limited information available in
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
patches), directory rename detection is disabled in the apply backend.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
Disabled directory rename detection means that if one side of history
|
|
|
|
renames a directory and the other adds new files to the old directory,
|
|
|
|
then the new files will be left behind in the old directory without
|
|
|
|
any warning at the time of rebasing that you may want to move these
|
|
|
|
files into the new directory.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Directory rename detection works with the merge backend to provide you
|
|
|
|
warnings in such cases.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Context
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The apply backend works by creating a sequence of patches (by calling
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
`format-patch` internally), and then applying the patches in sequence
|
|
|
|
(calling `am` internally). Patches are composed of multiple hunks,
|
|
|
|
each with line numbers, a context region, and the actual changes. The
|
|
|
|
line numbers have to be taken with some fuzz, since the other side
|
|
|
|
will likely have inserted or deleted lines earlier in the file. The
|
|
|
|
context region is meant to help find how to adjust the line numbers in
|
|
|
|
order to apply the changes to the right lines. However, if multiple
|
|
|
|
areas of the code have the same surrounding lines of context, the
|
|
|
|
wrong one can be picked. There are real-world cases where this has
|
|
|
|
caused commits to be reapplied incorrectly with no conflicts reported.
|
|
|
|
Setting diff.context to a larger value may prevent such types of
|
|
|
|
problems, but increases the chance of spurious conflicts (since it
|
|
|
|
will require more lines of matching context to apply).
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The merge backend works with a full copy of each relevant file,
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
insulating it from these types of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labelling of conflicts markers
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When there are content conflicts, the merge machinery tries to
|
|
|
|
annotate each side's conflict markers with the commits where the
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
content came from. Since the apply backend drops the original
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
information about the rebased commits and their parents (and instead
|
|
|
|
generates new fake commits based off limited information in the
|
|
|
|
generated patches), those commits cannot be identified; instead it has
|
|
|
|
to fall back to a commit summary. Also, when merge.conflictStyle is
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
set to diff3, the apply backend will use "constructed merge base" to
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
label the content from the merge base, and thus provide no information
|
|
|
|
about the merge base commit whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The merge backend works with the full commits on both sides of history
|
|
|
|
and thus has no such limitations.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hooks
|
|
|
|
~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The apply backend has not traditionally called the post-commit hook,
|
2020-04-05 00:00:17 +00:00
|
|
|
while the merge backend has. Both have called the post-checkout hook,
|
|
|
|
though the merge backend has squelched its output. Further, both
|
|
|
|
backends only call the post-checkout hook with the starting point
|
|
|
|
commit of the rebase, not the intermediate commits nor the final
|
|
|
|
commit. In each case, the calling of these hooks was by accident of
|
|
|
|
implementation rather than by design (both backends were originally
|
|
|
|
implemented as shell scripts and happened to invoke other commands
|
|
|
|
like 'git checkout' or 'git commit' that would call the hooks). Both
|
|
|
|
backends should have the same behavior, though it is not entirely
|
|
|
|
clear which, if any, is correct. We will likely make rebase stop
|
|
|
|
calling either of these hooks in the future.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:40 +00:00
|
|
|
Interruptability
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
The apply backend has safety problems with an ill-timed interrupt; if
|
|
|
|
the user presses Ctrl-C at the wrong time to try to abort the rebase,
|
|
|
|
the rebase can enter a state where it cannot be aborted with a
|
|
|
|
subsequent `git rebase --abort`. The merge backend does not appear to
|
2020-02-15 21:36:40 +00:00
|
|
|
suffer from the same shortcoming. (See
|
|
|
|
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200207132152.GC2868@szeder.dev/ for
|
|
|
|
details.)
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-11 15:30:23 +00:00
|
|
|
Commit Rewording
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a conflict occurs while rebasing, rebase stops and asks the user
|
|
|
|
to resolve. Since the user may need to make notable changes while
|
|
|
|
resolving conflicts, after conflicts are resolved and the user has run
|
|
|
|
`git rebase --continue`, the rebase should open an editor and ask the
|
|
|
|
user to update the commit message. The merge backend does this, while
|
|
|
|
the apply backend blindly applies the original commit message.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
Miscellaneous differences
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few more behavioral differences that most folks would
|
|
|
|
probably consider inconsequential but which are mentioned for
|
|
|
|
completeness:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Reflog: The two backends will use different wording when describing
|
|
|
|
the changes made in the reflog, though both will make use of the
|
|
|
|
word "rebase".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Progress, informational, and error messages: The two backends
|
|
|
|
provide slightly different progress and informational messages.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:41 +00:00
|
|
|
Also, the apply backend writes error messages (such as "Your files
|
|
|
|
would be overwritten...") to stdout, while the merge backend writes
|
|
|
|
them to stderr.
|
2020-02-15 21:36:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* State directories: The two backends keep their state in different
|
|
|
|
directories under .git/
|
2009-12-08 03:13:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-06-21 10:04:41 +00:00
|
|
|
include::merge-strategies.txt[]
|
|
|
|
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
NOTES
|
|
|
|
-----
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
You should understand the implications of using 'git rebase' on a
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
repository that you share. See also RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
|
|
|
|
below.
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-03 05:28:15 +00:00
|
|
|
When the git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a "pre-rebase"
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
hook if one exists. You can use this hook to do sanity checks and
|
|
|
|
reject the rebase if it isn't appropriate. Please see the template
|
|
|
|
pre-rebase hook script for an example.
|
|
|
|
|
2008-03-10 14:38:33 +00:00
|
|
|
Upon completion, <branch> will be the current branch.
|
2006-04-26 14:49:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
INTERACTIVE MODE
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebasing interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits
|
|
|
|
which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can
|
|
|
|
remove them (weeding out bad or otherwise unwanted patches).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interactive mode is meant for this type of workflow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. have a wonderful idea
|
|
|
|
2. hack on the code
|
|
|
|
3. prepare a series for submission
|
|
|
|
4. submit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where point 2. consists of several instances of
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-23 11:31:39 +00:00
|
|
|
a) regular use
|
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
1. finish something worthy of a commit
|
|
|
|
2. commit
|
2012-03-23 11:31:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) independent fixup
|
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
1. realize that something does not work
|
|
|
|
2. fix that
|
|
|
|
3. commit it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the thing fixed in b.2. cannot be amended to the not-quite
|
|
|
|
perfect commit it fixes, because that commit is buried deeply in a
|
|
|
|
patch series. That is exactly what interactive rebase is for: use it
|
|
|
|
after plenty of "a"s and "b"s, by rearranging and editing
|
|
|
|
commits, and squashing multiple commits into one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start it with the last commit you want to retain as-is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase -i <after-this-commit>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An editor will be fired up with all the commits in your current branch
|
|
|
|
(ignoring merge commits), which come after the given commit. You can
|
|
|
|
reorder the commits in this list to your heart's content, and you can
|
|
|
|
remove them. The list looks more or less like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
pick deadbee The oneline of this commit
|
|
|
|
pick fa1afe1 The oneline of the next commit
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
The oneline descriptions are purely for your pleasure; 'git rebase' will
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
not look at them but at the commit names ("deadbee" and "fa1afe1" in this
|
|
|
|
example), so do not delete or edit the names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By replacing the command "pick" with the command "edit", you can tell
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' to stop after applying that commit, so that you can edit
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
the files and/or the commit message, amend the commit, and continue
|
|
|
|
rebasing.
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-12 13:14:26 +00:00
|
|
|
To interrupt the rebase (just like an "edit" command would do, but without
|
|
|
|
cherry-picking any commit first), use the "break" command.
|
|
|
|
|
2009-10-07 06:13:23 +00:00
|
|
|
If you just want to edit the commit message for a commit, replace the
|
|
|
|
command "pick" with the command "reword".
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-29 20:20:30 +00:00
|
|
|
To drop a commit, replace the command "pick" with "drop", or just
|
|
|
|
delete the matching line.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
If you want to fold two or more commits into one, replace the command
|
2009-12-07 09:20:59 +00:00
|
|
|
"pick" for the second and subsequent commits with "squash" or "fixup".
|
|
|
|
If the commits had different authors, the folded commit will be
|
|
|
|
attributed to the author of the first commit. The suggested commit
|
2021-01-29 18:20:50 +00:00
|
|
|
message for the folded commit is the concatenation of the first
|
|
|
|
commit's message with those identified by "squash" commands, omitting the
|
|
|
|
messages of commits identified by "fixup" commands, unless "fixup -c"
|
|
|
|
is used. In that case the suggested commit message is only the message
|
|
|
|
of the "fixup -c" commit, and an editor is opened allowing you to edit
|
|
|
|
the message. The contents (patch) of the "fixup -c" commit are still
|
|
|
|
incorporated into the folded commit. If there is more than one "fixup -c"
|
2021-02-10 11:36:51 +00:00
|
|
|
commit, the message from the final one is used. You can also use
|
2021-01-29 18:20:50 +00:00
|
|
|
"fixup -C" to get the same behavior as "fixup -c" except without opening
|
|
|
|
an editor.
|
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' will stop when "pick" has been replaced with "edit" or
|
2009-10-07 06:13:23 +00:00
|
|
|
when a command fails due to merge errors. When you are done editing
|
|
|
|
and/or resolving conflicts you can continue with `git rebase --continue`.
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, if you want to reorder the last 5 commits, such that what
|
|
|
|
was HEAD~4 becomes the new HEAD. To achieve that, you would call
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
'git rebase' like this:
|
2007-06-25 00:11:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase -i HEAD~5
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And move the first patch to the end of the list.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-28 12:42:16 +00:00
|
|
|
You might want to recreate merge commits, e.g. if you have a history
|
|
|
|
like this:
|
2007-06-25 17:59:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
A---M---B
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
---o---O---P---Q
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you want to rebase the side branch starting at "A" to "Q". Make
|
|
|
|
sure that the current HEAD is "B", and call
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------
|
2019-05-28 12:42:16 +00:00
|
|
|
$ git rebase -i -r --onto Q O
|
2007-06-25 17:59:43 +00:00
|
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-10 15:17:51 +00:00
|
|
|
Reordering and editing commits usually creates untested intermediate
|
|
|
|
steps. You may want to check that your history editing did not break
|
|
|
|
anything by running a test, or at least recompiling at intermediate
|
|
|
|
points in history by using the "exec" command (shortcut "x"). You may
|
|
|
|
do so by creating a todo list like this one:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
|
|
|
|
fixup f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
|
|
|
|
exec make
|
|
|
|
pick c0ffeee The oneline of the next commit
|
|
|
|
edit deadbab The oneline of the commit after
|
|
|
|
exec cd subdir; make test
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interactive rebase will stop when a command fails (i.e. exits with
|
|
|
|
non-0 status) to give you an opportunity to fix the problem. You can
|
|
|
|
continue with `git rebase --continue`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "exec" command launches the command in a shell (the one specified
|
|
|
|
in `$SHELL`, or the default shell if `$SHELL` is not set), so you can
|
|
|
|
use shell features (like "cd", ">", ";" ...). The command is run from
|
|
|
|
the root of the working tree.
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2012-06-12 08:05:12 +00:00
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase -i --exec "make test"
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This command lets you check that intermediate commits are compilable.
|
|
|
|
The todo list becomes like that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
pick 5928aea one
|
|
|
|
exec make test
|
|
|
|
pick 04d0fda two
|
|
|
|
exec make test
|
|
|
|
pick ba46169 three
|
|
|
|
exec make test
|
|
|
|
pick f4593f9 four
|
|
|
|
exec make test
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
SPLITTING COMMITS
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In interactive mode, you can mark commits with the action "edit". However,
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
this does not necessarily mean that 'git rebase' expects the result of this
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
edit to be exactly one commit. Indeed, you can undo the commit, or you can
|
|
|
|
add other commits. This can be used to split a commit into two:
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 18:56:34 +00:00
|
|
|
- Start an interactive rebase with `git rebase -i <commit>^`, where
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
<commit> is the commit you want to split. In fact, any commit range
|
|
|
|
will do, as long as it contains that commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Mark the commit you want to split with the action "edit".
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 18:56:34 +00:00
|
|
|
- When it comes to editing that commit, execute `git reset HEAD^`. The
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
effect is that the HEAD is rewound by one, and the index follows suit.
|
|
|
|
However, the working tree stays the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Now add the changes to the index that you want to have in the first
|
2008-06-30 18:56:34 +00:00
|
|
|
commit. You can use `git add` (possibly interactively) or
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
'git gui' (or both) to do that.
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Commit the now-current index with whatever commit message is appropriate
|
|
|
|
now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Repeat the last two steps until your working tree is clean.
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-30 18:56:34 +00:00
|
|
|
- Continue the rebase with `git rebase --continue`.
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are not absolutely sure that the intermediate revisions are
|
|
|
|
consistent (they compile, pass the testsuite, etc.) you should use
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
'git stash' to stash away the not-yet-committed changes
|
2007-08-31 17:10:21 +00:00
|
|
|
after each commit, test, and amend the commit if fixes are necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebasing (or any other form of rewriting) a branch that others have
|
|
|
|
based work on is a bad idea: anyone downstream of it is forced to
|
|
|
|
manually fix their history. This section explains how to do the fix
|
|
|
|
from the downstream's point of view. The real fix, however, would be
|
|
|
|
to avoid rebasing the upstream in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To illustrate, suppose you are in a situation where someone develops a
|
|
|
|
'subsystem' branch, and you are working on a 'topic' that is dependent
|
|
|
|
on this 'subsystem'. You might end up with a history like the
|
|
|
|
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
2017-07-10 14:18:30 +00:00
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o subsystem
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 'subsystem' is rebased against 'master', the following happens:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
|
|
\ \
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you now continue development as usual, and eventually merge 'topic'
|
|
|
|
to 'subsystem', the commits from 'subsystem' will remain duplicated forever:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
|
|
\ \
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o'--M subsystem
|
|
|
|
\ /
|
|
|
|
*---*---*-..........-*--* topic
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such duplicates are generally frowned upon because they clutter up
|
|
|
|
history, making it harder to follow. To clean things up, you need to
|
|
|
|
transplant the commits on 'topic' to the new 'subsystem' tip, i.e.,
|
|
|
|
rebase 'topic'. This becomes a ripple effect: anyone downstream from
|
|
|
|
'topic' is forced to rebase too, and so on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of fixes, discussed in the following subsections:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easy case: The changes are literally the same.::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase was a simple rebase and
|
|
|
|
had no conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard case: The changes are not the same.::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase had conflicts, or used
|
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-04-26 08:51:57 +00:00
|
|
|
`--interactive` to omit, edit, squash, or fixup commits; or
|
|
|
|
if the upstream used one of `commit --amend`, `reset`, or
|
Recommend git-filter-repo instead of git-filter-branch
filter-branch suffers from a deluge of disguised dangers that disfigure
history rewrites (i.e. deviate from the deliberate changes). Many of
these problems are unobtrusive and can easily go undiscovered until the
new repository is in use. This can result in problems ranging from an
even messier history than what led folks to filter-branch in the first
place, to data loss or corruption. These issues cannot be backward
compatibly fixed, so add a warning to both filter-branch and its manpage
recommending that another tool (such as filter-repo) be used instead.
Also, update other manpages that referenced filter-branch. Several of
these needed updates even if we could continue recommending
filter-branch, either due to implying that something was unique to
filter-branch when it applied more generally to all history rewriting
tools (e.g. BFG, reposurgeon, fast-import, filter-repo), or because
something about filter-branch was used as an example despite other more
commonly known examples now existing. Reword these sections to fix
these issues and to avoid recommending filter-branch.
Finally, remove the section explaining BFG Repo Cleaner as an
alternative to filter-branch. I feel somewhat bad about this,
especially since I feel like I learned so much from BFG that I put to
good use in filter-repo (which is much more than I can say for
filter-branch), but keeping that section presented a few problems:
* In order to recommend that people quit using filter-branch, we need
to provide them a recomendation for something else to use that
can handle all the same types of rewrites. To my knowledge,
filter-repo is the only such tool. So it needs to be mentioned.
* I don't want to give conflicting recommendations to users
* If we recommend two tools, we shouldn't expect users to learn both
and pick which one to use; we should explain which problems one
can solve that the other can't or when one is much faster than
the other.
* BFG and filter-repo have similar performance
* All filtering types that BFG can do, filter-repo can also do. In
fact, filter-repo comes with a reimplementation of BFG named
bfg-ish which provides the same user-interface as BFG but with
several bugfixes and new features that are hard to implement in
BFG due to its technical underpinnings.
While I could still mention both tools, it seems like I would need to
provide some kind of comparison and I would ultimately just say that
filter-repo can do everything BFG can, so ultimately it seems that it
is just better to remove that section altogether.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-04 22:32:38 +00:00
|
|
|
a full history rewriting command like
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo[`filter-repo`].
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The easy case
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only works if the changes (patch IDs based on the diff contents) on
|
|
|
|
'subsystem' are literally the same before and after the rebase
|
|
|
|
'subsystem' did.
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
In that case, the fix is easy because 'git rebase' knows to skip
|
2020-04-11 02:44:27 +00:00
|
|
|
changes that are already present in the new upstream (unless
|
|
|
|
`--reapply-cherry-picks` is given). So if you say
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
(assuming you're on 'topic')
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase subsystem
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
you will end up with the fixed history
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hard case
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things get more complicated if the 'subsystem' changes do not exactly
|
|
|
|
correspond to the ones before the rebase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful
|
|
|
|
even in the hard case, it may have unintended consequences. For
|
|
|
|
example, a commit that was removed via `git rebase
|
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-04-26 08:51:57 +00:00
|
|
|
--interactive` will be **resurrected**!
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
The idea is to manually tell 'git rebase' "where the old 'subsystem'
|
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-08-27 05:38:06 +00:00
|
|
|
ended and your 'topic' began", that is, what the old merge base
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
between them was. You will have to find a way to name the last commit
|
|
|
|
of the old 'subsystem', for example:
|
|
|
|
|
2010-01-09 23:33:00 +00:00
|
|
|
* With the 'subsystem' reflog: after 'git fetch', the old tip of
|
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-04-26 08:51:57 +00:00
|
|
|
'subsystem' is at `subsystem@{1}`. Subsequent fetches will
|
2008-09-13 16:11:00 +00:00
|
|
|
increase the number. (See linkgit:git-reflog[1].)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Relative to the tip of 'topic': knowing that your 'topic' has three
|
|
|
|
commits, the old tip of 'subsystem' must be `topic~3`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can then transplant the old `subsystem..topic` to the new tip by
|
|
|
|
saying (for the reflog case, and assuming you are on 'topic' already):
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
$ git rebase --onto subsystem subsystem@{1}
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ripple effect of a "hard case" recovery is especially bad:
|
|
|
|
'everyone' downstream from 'topic' will now have to perform a "hard
|
|
|
|
case" recovery too!
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
REBASING MERGES
|
2018-06-27 08:57:43 +00:00
|
|
|
---------------
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interactive rebase command was originally designed to handle
|
|
|
|
individual patch series. As such, it makes sense to exclude merge
|
|
|
|
commits from the todo list, as the developer may have merged the
|
|
|
|
then-current `master` while working on the branch, only to rebase
|
|
|
|
all the commits onto `master` eventually (skipping the merge
|
|
|
|
commits).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, there are legitimate reasons why a developer may want to
|
|
|
|
recreate merge commits: to keep the branch structure (or "commit
|
|
|
|
topology") when working on multiple, inter-related branches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the following example, the developer works on a topic branch that
|
|
|
|
refactors the way buttons are defined, and on another topic branch
|
|
|
|
that uses that refactoring to implement a "Report a bug" button. The
|
|
|
|
output of `git log --graph --format=%s -5` may look like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
* Merge branch 'report-a-bug'
|
|
|
|
|\
|
|
|
|
| * Add the feedback button
|
|
|
|
* | Merge branch 'refactor-button'
|
|
|
|
|\ \
|
|
|
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
| * Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
|
|
| * Extract a generic Button class from the DownloadButton one
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The developer might want to rebase those commits to a newer `master`
|
|
|
|
while keeping the branch topology, for example when the first topic
|
|
|
|
branch is expected to be integrated into `master` much earlier than the
|
|
|
|
second one, say, to resolve merge conflicts with changes to the
|
|
|
|
DownloadButton class that made it into `master`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This rebase can be performed using the `--rebase-merges` option.
|
|
|
|
It will generate a todo list looking like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
label onto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Branch: refactor-button
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
|
|
pick 123456 Extract a generic Button class from the DownloadButton one
|
|
|
|
pick 654321 Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
|
|
label refactor-button
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Branch: report-a-bug
|
|
|
|
reset refactor-button # Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
|
|
pick abcdef Add the feedback button
|
|
|
|
label report-a-bug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
|
|
merge -C a1b2c3 refactor-button # Merge 'refactor-button'
|
|
|
|
merge -C 6f5e4d report-a-bug # Merge 'report-a-bug'
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In contrast to a regular interactive rebase, there are `label`, `reset`
|
|
|
|
and `merge` commands in addition to `pick` ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `label` command associates a label with the current HEAD when that
|
|
|
|
command is executed. These labels are created as worktree-local refs
|
|
|
|
(`refs/rewritten/<label>`) that will be deleted when the rebase
|
|
|
|
finishes. That way, rebase operations in multiple worktrees linked to
|
|
|
|
the same repository do not interfere with one another. If the `label`
|
|
|
|
command fails, it is rescheduled immediately, with a helpful message how
|
|
|
|
to proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `reset` command resets the HEAD, index and worktree to the specified
|
2018-10-06 04:20:22 +00:00
|
|
|
revision. It is similar to an `exec git reset --hard <label>`, but
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
refuses to overwrite untracked files. If the `reset` command fails, it is
|
|
|
|
rescheduled immediately, with a helpful message how to edit the todo list
|
|
|
|
(this typically happens when a `reset` command was inserted into the todo
|
|
|
|
list manually and contains a typo).
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-09 16:36:47 +00:00
|
|
|
The `merge` command will merge the specified revision(s) into whatever
|
|
|
|
is HEAD at that time. With `-C <original-commit>`, the commit message of
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
the specified merge commit will be used. When the `-C` is changed to
|
|
|
|
a lower-case `-c`, the message will be opened in an editor after a
|
|
|
|
successful merge so that the user can edit the message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a `merge` command fails for any reason other than merge conflicts (i.e.
|
|
|
|
when the merge operation did not even start), it is rescheduled immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this time, the `merge` command will *always* use the `recursive`
|
2018-03-09 16:36:47 +00:00
|
|
|
merge strategy for regular merges, and `octopus` for octopus merges,
|
2018-12-08 23:15:41 +00:00
|
|
|
with no way to choose a different one. To work around
|
2018-04-25 12:29:47 +00:00
|
|
|
this, an `exec` command can be used to call `git merge` explicitly,
|
|
|
|
using the fact that the labels are worktree-local refs (the ref
|
|
|
|
`refs/rewritten/onto` would correspond to the label `onto`, for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: the first command (`label onto`) labels the revision onto which
|
|
|
|
the commits are rebased; The name `onto` is just a convention, as a nod
|
|
|
|
to the `--onto` option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is also possible to introduce completely new merge commits from scratch
|
|
|
|
by adding a command of the form `merge <merge-head>`. This form will
|
|
|
|
generate a tentative commit message and always open an editor to let the
|
|
|
|
user edit it. This can be useful e.g. when a topic branch turns out to
|
|
|
|
address more than a single concern and wants to be split into two or
|
|
|
|
even more topic branches. Consider this todo list:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
pick 192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
|
|
|
|
pick 5a6c7e Document the switch to CMake
|
|
|
|
pick 918273 Fix detection of OpenSSL in CMake
|
|
|
|
pick afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
|
|
|
|
pick fdbaec Fix detection of cURL in CMake on Windows
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one commit in this list that is not related to CMake may very well
|
|
|
|
have been motivated by working on fixing all those bugs introduced by
|
|
|
|
switching to CMake, but it addresses a different concern. To split this
|
|
|
|
branch into two topic branches, the todo list could be edited like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
label onto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pick afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
|
|
|
|
label tlsv1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
|
|
pick 192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
|
|
|
|
pick 918273 Fix detection of OpenSSL in CMake
|
|
|
|
pick fdbaec Fix detection of cURL in CMake on Windows
|
|
|
|
pick 5a6c7e Document the switch to CMake
|
|
|
|
label cmake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
|
|
merge tlsv1.3
|
|
|
|
merge cmake
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-09 15:02:50 +00:00
|
|
|
CONFIGURATION
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
include::config/rebase.txt[]
|
|
|
|
include::config/sequencer.txt[]
|
|
|
|
|
2010-06-01 01:43:35 +00:00
|
|
|
BUGS
|
|
|
|
----
|
2019-03-11 19:57:35 +00:00
|
|
|
The todo list presented by the deprecated `--preserve-merges --interactive`
|
|
|
|
does not represent the topology of the revision graph (use `--rebase-merges`
|
|
|
|
instead). Editing commits and rewording their commit messages should work
|
|
|
|
fine, but attempts to reorder commits tend to produce counterintuitive results.
|
|
|
|
Use `--rebase-merges` in such scenarios instead.
|
2010-06-01 01:43:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, an attempt to rearrange
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 3 --- 5
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
by moving the "pick 4" line will result in the following history:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
/
|
|
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 5
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2005-08-23 08:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
GIT
|
|
|
|
---
|
2008-06-06 07:07:32 +00:00
|
|
|
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite
|