Re: Unreliable 'git rebase --onto'

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 9, 2020, 18:05 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BFiDNb18m8geTCxKLXg0fOd0DS1dWRVWCfnTG0suwGRHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200109105307.GA1349@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com>

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:53 AM Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

>
> Hi Elijah, hi Szeder,
>
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:06:22PM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > This looks like a known bug in rebase, in particular in the am-backend that
> > rebase uses by default.  If I'm correct that it's just a context region
> > issue, then this is the same bug that was recently discussed at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAN_72e2h2avv-U9BVBYqXVKiC+5kHy-pjejyMSD3X22uRXE39g@mail.gmail.com/.
> > The current plan is to switch the default over to the merge backend (the
> > same machinery that cherry-pick uses), which doesn't suffer from the same
> > shortcomings (you can see the current work being done in this area at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.679.v3.git.git.1577217299.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
> > ).
>
> Thank you for your feedback and references, here and in [*].
>
> Once hit by this or similar issues, I think there is high chance for
> people to go through the same feelings as described by Pavel in [**]:
>
>   ---
>   That's so scary that I'm going to stop using "git rebase" for now.
>   ---

Yep, I understand; that kind of feeling is why I wanted to jump in and try to help fix it. I want merge/rebase/cherry-pick to be reliable.

> Some years ago I was hit by 'git merge' producing slightly different
> results compared to 'git rebase --onto' and 'git cherry-pick A..B'
> (maybe I can come up with a reproduction scenario for that too).

If you can, I'd be interested to see it and take a look. I'd normally assume it was just some case where A..B included "evil" merge commits (merge commits that made additional changes not part of the actual merging) since rebasing or cherry-picking such a range would exclude the merge commits and thus drop those changes -- but you identified a real bug with the default rebase backend so I'm interested to see if you happen to have more bugs I should know about.

Show 10 quoted lines

>
> Since then, I usually contrast the outcomes of merging, cherry-picking
> and rebasing, to make sure they match, but that's painful and
> time-consuming.
>
> > In the mean time, you can pass the -m flag to rebase to avoid these types
> > of problems.  In fact, if you could retry with -m you may be able to
> > confirm whether it's the same issue.
>
> Indeed, neither `git rebase -m` nor `git rebase -i` exhibit the problem.

That's good news.

Unfortunately, you should note that git-2.25 is going to have the same bug you reported; there are still some loose ends with my series to make -m the default, and the 2.25 release is expected within a few days, so my change of default won't happen until 2.26. (That series would have needed to be completed several weeks ago for it to go into 2.25).