Re: Difference between 'git rebase' and 'git rebase -m'

From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2010, 14:38 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTikY0BE-PMP5TpAjL2TOYBQ-sTAAka2Gt6f8qd3P@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CE3DA66.80808@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy venit, vidit, dixit 17.11.2010 12:43:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Joshua Jensen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious as to why 'git rebase -m' isn't the default and what the
>>>> real difference is between 'git rebase' and 'git rebase -m'.
>>>
>>> git rebase is faster. :)
>>
>> Perhaps a config option to let people to default to -m. Or perhaps
>> they can just make an alias.
>>
>> By the way, can we make rebase even faster? Rebasing ~20 patches or
>> more seems slow to me. I don't know much how patching works though.
>
> git sequencer...

Sequencer is definitely an improvement. But does it improve performance? I don't know rebase internals but I think that it needs to update worktree/index for every commit, which might slow things down a bit.

-- 
Duy