Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

From: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2012, 12:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20120927122035.GL16059@arachsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiSa6i+A6fkWpkPMXiBRdT48LaSfPe2yki+AmWFAKYg02p=+g@mail.gmail.com>

Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>
> > Why? Is it more like "--root implies --force"?
> 
> It doesn't currently exactly imply --force, but the effect is the
> same. Also see my reply to Junio's email in this thread.
> 
> Maybe Chris has some thoughts on this?

Hi Martin and Johannes. Sorry for the slow follow-up here.

You're right that rebase --root without --onto always creates a brand new root as a result of the implementation using a sentinel commit. Clearly this is what's wanted with --interactive, but rebase --root with neither --onto nor --interactive is a slightly odd combination for which I struggle to imagine a natural use. Perhaps you're right that for consistency it should be a no-op unless --force-rebase is given?

If we did this, this combination would be a no-op unconditionally as by definition we're always descended from the root of our current commit. However, given the not-very-useful behaviour, I suspect that rebase --root is much more likely to be a mistyped version of rebase -i --root than rebase --root --force-rebase. (Unless I'm missing a reasonable use for this? History linearisation perhaps?)

Best wishes,

Chris.