{"thread":{"id":"51297","subject":"rebase drops patches that have since been reverted","startedAt":"2019-06-12T15:03:16Z","lastAt":"2019-06-12T16:55:25Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Shawn Landden","Johannes Sixt"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"377080","messageId":"CA+49okrxjv63UQfQ1fMt6xC95Pjz2wuZu70WMS94vukTHevEaw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"51297","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"rebase drops patches that have since been reverted","fromName":"Shawn Landden","fromEmail":"slandden@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-06-12T15:03:01Z","receivedAt":"2019-06-12T15:03:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"slandden@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"If a patch has been applied upstream AND THEN reverted, rebase still\ndrops the patch, requiring the use of relative rebase git rebase -i\nHEAD~5 et cetera.\n\ngit rebase should detect reverts as well.\n\n-Shawn Landden\n"},{"id":"377089","messageId":"2033f2fe-cc01-d7a6-bac3-4ba982a68425@kdbg.org","threadId":"51297","inReplyTo":"CA+49okrxjv63UQfQ1fMt6xC95Pjz2wuZu70WMS94vukTHevEaw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: rebase drops patches that have since been reverted","fromName":"Johannes Sixt","fromEmail":"j6t@kdbg.org","sentAt":"2019-06-12T16:55:22Z","receivedAt":"2019-06-12T16:55:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"j6t@kdbg.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14810926?v=4"},"body":"Am 12.06.19 um 17:03 schrieb Shawn Landden:\n> If a patch has been applied upstream AND THEN reverted, rebase still\n> drops the patch, requiring the use of relative rebase git rebase -i\n> HEAD~5 et cetera.\n> \n> git rebase should detect reverts as well.\n\nYou have the same patch that upstream has. Perhaps you cherry-picked it\nfrom them, or they cherry-picked it from you. In any case, they thought\nthe patch was a good one.\n\nLater upstream found a problem with the patch and decided to revert it.\nCertainly, they didn't do this just for fun; they had a good reason.\n\nNow you are rebasing against upstream. IOW, you are accepting the\nauthority of the upstream code. Then, why on earth would you not want to\naccept their authorative word that the cherry-picked patch was bad and\nneeded to be reverted?\n\nIf you later find out that your patch is definitely needed, then it is\non you to prove that, for example, by including it again in your patch\nseries. That must be an explicit decision on your part, not an accident\nthat happens.\n\nTLDR: Git worked as designed.\n\n-- Hannes\n"}]}