Re: Is rebase always destructive?

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Dec 1, 2008, 16:45 UTC
Message-ID: <49341494.40907@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <slrngj7jch.2srb.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu>

Csaba Henk wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> When doing a rebase, I can find a number of reasons for which one might
> feel like to preserve the rebased branch (that is, perform an operation
> which copies the branch over a new base, not moves).
> 
> -  For example, a successful rebase doesn't necessarily mean that the
>    code, as of the rebased branch, is consistent and compiles. That is,
>    the rebase can be broken even if git can put things together diff-wise.
>    In such a case I wouldn't be happy to lose the original instance of
>    the branch.
> 
> -  Or I might want to build different versions of the program, and each
>    version of it needs a given set of fixes (the same one). Then rebasing
>    my bugfix branch is not a good idea, I'd much rather copy it over all
>    those versions.
> 
> I can't see any option for rebase which would yield this cp-like
> behaviour. Am I missing something? Or people don't need such a feature?
> (Then give me some LART please, my mind is not yet gittified enough to
> see why is this not needed.) Or is it usually done by other means, not
> rebase?
>

When I feel I'm in any danger of ending up with mis-compiles or whatnot,
I usually do
  git checkout -b try-rebase
  git rebase $target
which does exactly what you want.

For almost all other operations, it's possible to get your previous branch-pointer back, either by referencing ORIG_HEAD, or the reflogs.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231