git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Is rebase always destructive?

From
CHCsaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu>
Date
Dec 1, 2008, 11:41 UTC
Message-ID
<slrngj7jch.2srb.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu>
Hi,

When doing a rebase, I can find a number of reasons for which one might feel like to preserve the rebased branch (that is, perform an operation which copies the branch over a new base, not moves).

-  For example, a successful rebase doesn't necessarily mean that the
   code, as of the rebased branch, is consistent and compiles. That is,
   the rebase can be broken even if git can put things together diff-wise.
   In such a case I wouldn't be happy to lose the original instance of
   the branch.
-  Or I might want to build different versions of the program, and each
   version of it needs a given set of fixes (the same one). Then rebasing
   my bugfix branch is not a good idea, I'd much rather copy it over all
   those versions.

I can't see any option for rebase which would yield this cp-like behaviour. Am I missing something? Or people don't need such a feature? (Then give me some LART please, my mind is not yet gittified enough to see why is this not needed.) Or is it usually done by other means, not rebase?

Thanks Csaba

Next: Johan Herland
Message 1 of 6 in “Is rebase always destructive?”
  1. Csaba HenkDec 1, 2008
  2. Johan HerlandDec 1, 2008
  3. Nick AndrewDec 1, 2008
  4. Csaba HenkDec 1, 2008
  5. Robin RosenbergDec 1, 2008
  6. Andreas EricssonDec 1, 2008

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.