Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #01; Tue, 1)

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Dec 7, 2015, 13:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20151207134014.GA1105@pks-xps.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20151202223114.GA20542@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:31:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:11:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

[snip]

Show 14 quoted lines

> > "--keep-empty" has always been about keeping an originally empty
> > commit, not a commit that becomes empty because of rebasing
> > (i.e. what has already been applied to the updated base).  The
> > documentation, if it leads to any other interpretation, needs to be
> > fixed.
> > 
> > Besides, if "--keep-empty" were to mean "keep redundant ones that
> > are already in the updated base", the patch must do a lot more,
> > e.g. stop filtering with git-cherry patch equivalence.
> > 
> > I'm inclined to eject this topic.
> 
> That was my thinking too (and I notice it didn't get any review from
> anybody else).

[snip]

Well, I kind of agree. The cherry-pick command has both --allow-empty and --keep-redundant flags, where the second one is the kind of behavior I want to achieve in my case. As an alternative to the proposed change to `--keep-empty` I could instead introduce a new flag `--keep-redundant-commits` to `git rebase` which would then pass the flag through to the cherry-pick.

Any opinions on this?

Patrick