Rebasing a branch that contains merges
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 19, 2007, 09:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200702190912.24067.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Hello,
I've done some little experiments with rebasing a branch with merges on it. I wanted to check that what I found is what is intended.
I made a repository like this:
* -- * -- * (master)
|\
| A (branch1) -- M (merge)
\ /
B (branch2) --It's a horribly unfair thing to do, but while on merge I did
git rebase master
I had been hoping that both branches would rebase, but only one did. I got:
* -- * -- * (master) -- B -- M (merge)
|\
| A (branch1)
\
B (branch2)"M" effectively now contains all of branch1's changes. If I hadn't referenced the merge head separately from the two branch heads, all the history in branch1 would now be represented by "M".
I don't think this is the right result. Either * git should refuse to rebase because it would lose history * git should rebase both branches
The ideal result (perhaps unrealisticly) would have been
* -- * -- * (master)
|\
| A (branch1) -- M (merge)
\ /
B (branch2) --This is an unreasonable thing to expect a version control system to be able to do - it's a nasty, complicated wish. git is its own worst enemy for things like this; it's getting to be so good at nasty unreasonable things that they don't seem like fantasy-land wishes.
A perfectly valid answer is "don't be so ridiculous Andy, go away". :-)
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE andyparkins@gmail.com