From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 23:02:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <753daaa4-e675-4d28-9c13-4f5ede0f3b47@app.fastmail.com> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" writes: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025, at 13:41, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>> All looked sensible. >>>> >>>> The second one looked a bit sketchy, but that was the phrase used by >>>> the log message for c4611130 (replay: add --contained to rebase >>>> contained branches, 2023-11-24). >>> >>> How should `--contained` be documented? >> >> The text you added uses exactly the phrase used by the log message, >> so the author of the feature apparently felt it is good enough ;-). >> >> It just felt that "contained in " is understandable >> enough. > > “is [not]” presumably. Actually, s/It felt/I was unsure/;-). >> master..next? If it is the former, is it because the topmost >> commit (i.e., the commit pointed at by the branch reference) is >> the only thing that counts, and it indeed is master..next? > > It’s a somewhat complex case compared to what I think is the usual one: > a non-merge range of commits without any patch-id-equivalents on the > target (fingers crossed). And the setup without merges: two topic > branches in the range gives the output I expect: > > git replay --contained --onto=target2 > update > update > > I think the original phrasing is understandable. But we could add > an example. > > For example, if the range contains five commits where a branch > points to the newest commit and another branch points to the third > commit ... Alternatively, you can explicitly refer to "the tip of the branch"; that phrasing will be understood by people from both camps. Those who considers that a "branch" consists of the commits between the fork point and its tip, and those who thinks a "branch" is a fancy name attached to one particular commit in the DAG that can move around (typically forward). Those branches whose tips are within the range are updated.