Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: May 9, 2018, 18:21 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kb05U91_Ku7DKuwQVCrtouYwGWTCPdJFQ=bgWo91inRGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU8umjyrJc1m65hu6QMQUiNmsJtbV65tovcWjvmzFpsCr668A@mail.gmail.com>

+cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
>
> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?

I found https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 from 2010-03-24

    Teach rebase the --no-ff option.

    For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.

    For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits in
    the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged commits.

    --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.  Instead of
    "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the branch
    with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
    committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
    reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added an
    addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and how to
    use --no-ff to handle it.

which sounds as if there is?

Stefan