Re: [PATCH (v2) 2/2] rebase -i: teach --onto A...B syntax
- From
Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 8, 2010, 20:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <32541b131001081231x1b6ac8c1k30084e4abf8cc896@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <fabb9a1e1001081222q7122872bu72cea4e393f272ac@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 15:16, Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> wrote: >> This would resolve any other inconsistencies between the two as well, >> notably that non-interactive rebase sometimes refuses to do the rebase >> I requested because "Current branch master is up to date," while >> interactive rebase is willing to do it. (Personally I prefer the >> latter behaviour, since I don't like tools that think they're smarter >> than me :)) > > I taught rebase the -f|--force-rebase flag a little while back, you > could use that :).
Thanks, I didn't know about that one. But my general point is still: we seem to have two implementations when the functionality of one is actually a superset of the other. As far as I can see, anyway. So the obvious way to reduce the duplicated code is to simply eliminate the less-featureful implementation.
Avery