Re: rebase vs rebase -i

From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 4, 2010, 18:10 UTC
Message-ID: <76718491002041010k84ad55ct5c3e80529e8f8428@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1002041859000.4505@intel-tinevez-2-302>

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Jay Soffian wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> (Here I'm setting GIT_EDITOR=true just to demonstrate that I didn't
>> >> change the list of commits in the latter case.)
>> >
>> > You can get _exactly_ the same behavior if you use -m.
>>
>> Or rather, -p. ;-)
>
> No.  -p tries to preserve merges, and it will use
> git-rebase--interactive.sh for hysterical raisins.
>
> I meant -m.

I don't understand what you mean by "_exactly_ the same behavior" then.

"GIT_EDITOR=true git rebase -i" and "git rebase -p" both use git-rebase--interactive.sh, and so are exactly the same behavior.

-m still uses git-rebase.sh, but calls merge instead of format-patch + am. Perhaps the end-result is the same, but the behavior is different.

I guess I'm being a bit pedantic here, but I'm really just trying to understand what you mean.

Thanks,

j.