git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: rebase --root conflicts with --committer-date-is-author-date

From
Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Date
Apr 16, 2015, 22:15 UTC
Message-ID
<43BA47EB-FA7B-4D33-8ECA-F8051B16E78E@arachsys.com>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqwq1h50na.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Chris, do you remember if there was a reason why it was a bad idea
> to teach the normal rebase codepath to handle "--root"?  I think we
> would have needed to allow "am" to apply a creation patch and start
> a new history on an unborn branch in order to do so, but I am not
> sure if there was a valid reason why such a change to "am" would
> have been a bad idea.

Hi. It's a long time ago, but I don't remember any reason and it feels sensible that am should be able to create an unborn branch in the same way interactive rebase can.

I suspect I had done the necessary work for rebase -i but not for am, and incorrectly assumed that interactive rebase was in any case a superset of non-interactive.

Best wishes,
Chris.
Previous: Junio C Hamano
Message 3 of 3 in “rebase --root conflicts with --committer-date-is-author-date”
  1. Elliot WolkApr 11, 2015
  2. Junio C HamanoApr 12, 2015
  3. Chris WebbApr 16, 2015

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.