Re: Itches with the current rev spec

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2013, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0-C_TRC_eD_ZbN3WFe4NKWVPQVhh+ME-F5yBBwKs2NdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v7gjpxjw0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
>
>> Allow alternative spelling of
>>
>>    git rebase -i master topic
>>
>> like this:
>>
>>    git rebase -i master..topic
>>
>> (as always, the default for topic is HEAD).
>
> I actually made this typo a few times in the past.
>
> In a single-strand-of-pearls history, what rebase operates on is
> clearly a _range_ with a defined linear order of commits, and
> master..topic is a natural way to express it.

I agree, but I think there are other unexpected things.

I don't know what 'git rebase master' does, but I would expect 'git rebase --onto=master' to do the same thing. Then, if 'git rebase --onto=next master..topic' makes sense, so should 'git rebase next master..topic'.

Moreover, it often annoys me that 'git rebase master' does exactly what I want, but 'git rebase --onto=master previous' doesn't find the commits that are already into 'master'. One would expect the more defined version to work better, but it doesn't =/

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras