Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: accept -<number> as another way of saying HEAD~<number>
- From
Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
- Date
- Mar 3, 2014, 09:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <vpq7g8bfws8.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <53144881.6090702@alum.mit.edu>
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Or perhaps "-NUM" should fail with an error message if any of the last > NUM commits are merges. In that restricted scenario (which probably > accounts for 99% of rebases), "-NUM" is equivalent to "HEAD~NUM".
Makes sense to me. So, -NUM would actually mean "rebase the last NUM commits" (as well as being an alias for HEAD~NUM), but would fail when it does not make sense (with an error message explaining the situation and pointing the user to HEAD~N if this is what he wanted).
This would actually be a feature for me: I often want to rebase "recent enough" history, and when my @{upstream} isn't well positionned, I randomly type HEAD~N without remembering what N should be. When N is too small, the rebase doesn't reach the interesting commit, and when N is too big, it reaches a merge commit and I get a bunch of commits I'm not allowed to edit in my todo-list. Then I have to abort the commit manually. With -N failing on merge commits, the rebase would abort itself automatically.
-- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/