From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:46:42 GMT
Subject: Re: rebase vs rebase -i
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1002041946170.4505@intel-tinevez-2-302>
In-Reply-To: <76718491002041010k84ad55ct5c3e80529e8f8428@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Jay Soffian wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Jay Soffian wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> >> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> >> (Here I'm setting GIT_EDITOR=true just to demonstrate that I didn't
> >> >> change the list of commits in the latter case.)
> >> >
> >> > You can get _exactly_ the same behavior if you use -m.
> >>
> >> Or rather, -p. ;-)
> >
> > No.  -p tries to preserve merges, and it will use
> > git-rebase--interactive.sh for hysterical raisins.
> >
> > I meant -m.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by "_exactly_ the same behavior" then.

Both "rebase -i" and "rebase -m" are really a cherry-pick in a loop.

Ciao,
Dscho