Show 26 quoted lines
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> >
>> > This behavior is more desirable than fetch + pull when a topic branch
>> > is ready to be submitted.
>>
>> I'd like there to be some *big*warning* about how this destroys history
>> and how you must not do this if you expose your history anywhere else.
>>
>> I think it's a perfectly fine history, but if you have already pushed out
>> your history somewhere else, you're now really screwed. In ways that a
>> *real* merge will never screw you.
>>
>> So the "--rebase" option really is only good for the lowest-level
>> developers. And that should be documented.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> How about this in the man page:
>
> \--rebase::
> Instead of a merge, perform a rebase after fetching.
> *NOTE:* Never do this on branches you plan to publish! This
> command will _destroy_ history, and is thus only suitable for
> topic branches to be submitted to another committer.
Nits.
(1) This "operation" will "rewrite" history.
You are not describing a command, but just one mode of operation
of a command, whose other modes of operation do not share this
history altering behaviour. The history is rewritten and made hard to work with for others
who have previous incarnation of that history. If it happens
that nobody shared that previously published history nobody
needs to suffer. In that sense, there is something _usable_
depending on who you are. Destroy feels a bit too strong a
word.(2) This is not suitable for people who publish their trees and
let others fetch and work off of them. Rebase is fine for e-mail submitting contributors as your
description above suggests, but as your proposed commit log
message said, it is also perfectly appropriate if your
interaction with the outside world is "fetch + rebase +
push". You are not limited to "submitted to another
committer".Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>