From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:31:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH (v2) 2/2] rebase -i: teach --onto A...B syntax
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:
> 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