From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:12:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: accept -<number> as another way of saying HEAD~<number>
Message-ID: <vpqvbvvegli.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8CPhTQxpnY70PxD9zFSipaJCTQPBsmReD8E9tmEgsvTRg@mail.gmail.com>

Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Matthieu Moy
>
>> 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.
>
> would "git rebase -i --fork-point" be what you need instead?

I don't think so. My use case is when I did a manual merge, so
@{upstream} is helpless or even not positionned. There is for sure an
accurate command (remember the branch I just merged and put it on the
command-line), but my fingers prefer typing quick and dirty commands and
hope I won't get too many trial and error cycles ;-).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/