threads / discuss / 48443
Subject: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
Ilya KantorRight now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?
After doing some tests and looking in the source I couldn't find any difference between those two at all.
Probably, there was a difference some time ago, but not now?
Then one of them can be safely deprecated.
--- Best Regards, Ilya Kantor
Stefan BellerRe: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
+cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: > "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." > > But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?
I found https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 from 2010-03-24
Teach rebase the --no-ff option.
For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.
For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits in
the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged commits. --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. Instead of
"reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the branch
with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert the
reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. Added an
addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and how to
use --no-ff to handle it.which sounds as if there is?
Stefan
Marc BranchaudRe: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase. > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote: >> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: >> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." >> >> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference? > > I found > https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 > from 2010-03-24
In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run.
At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff. That might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.
Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options or deprecating one of them.
M.
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xiplink.com/t/ [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com/ [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
> Teach rebase the --no-ff option. > > For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase. > > For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits in > the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged commits. > > --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. Instead of > "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the branch > with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the > committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert the > reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. Added an > addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and how to > use --no-ff to handle it. > > which sounds as if there is? > > Stefan >
Ilya KantorRe: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository: http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL
There's no difference in the resulf of: git rebase --force-rebase 54a4 git rebase --no-ff 54a4
(rebases all 3 commits of feature)
Also, there's no difference in interactive mode: git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4 git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4
(picks all 3 commits of feature)
Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?
--- Best Regards, Ilya Kantor
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >> >> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase. >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: >>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." >>> >>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference? >> >> >> I found >> >> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 >> from 2010-03-24 > > > In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed > teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a > new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface > design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run. > > At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff. That > might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c. > > Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options > or deprecating one of them. > > M. > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xiplink.com/t/ > [2] > https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com/ > [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/ > > >> Teach rebase the --no-ff option. >> >> For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase. >> >> For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits >> in >> the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged >> commits. >> >> --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. >> Instead of >> "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the >> branch >> with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the >> committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert the >> reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. Added >> an >> addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and >> how to >> use --no-ff to handle it. >> >> which sounds as if there is? >> >> Stefan >> >
Marc BranchaudRe: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
On 2018-05-09 03:46 PM, Ilya Kantor wrote:
> I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository: > http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL > > There's no difference in the resulf of: > git rebase --force-rebase 54a4 > git rebase --no-ff 54a4 > > (rebases all 3 commits of feature) > > Also, there's no difference in interactive mode: > git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4 > git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4 > > (picks all 3 commits of feature) > > Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?
So now that "rebase -i" respects --force-rebase, the question is what to do about it:
1. Teach "rebase -i" to stop respecting --force-rebase (restoring the original intent when --no-ff was introduced)?
2. Deprecate --no-ff?
3. Deprecate --force-rebase?
As a heavy rebase user, I find --no-ff more intuitive than --force-rebase. I'd be in favour of option 3, and keeping just --no-ff (with -f as a synonym).
M.
> --- > Best Regards, > Ilya Kantor > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote: >> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >>> >>> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase. >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: >>>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." >>>> >>>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference? >>> >>> >>> I found >>> >>> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 >>> from 2010-03-24 >> >> >> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed >> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a >> new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface >> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run. >> >> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff. That >> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c. >> >> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options >> or deprecating one of them. >> >> M. >> >> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xiplink.com/t/ >> [2] >> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com/ >> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/ >> >> >>> Teach rebase the --no-ff option. >>> >>> For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase. >>> >>> For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits >>> in >>> the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged >>> commits. >>> >>> --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. >>> Instead of >>> "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the >>> branch >>> with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the >>> committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert the >>> reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. Added >>> an >>> addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and >>> how to >>> use --no-ff to handle it. >>> >>> which sounds as if there is? >>> >>> Stefan >>> >>
Ilya KantorRe: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?
Hi,
If that's indeed true (as far as I could see that, still can be mistaken), then as a git user, not developer, I'd stick to --no-ff, because it's the more intuitive naming.
Just 5¢. --- Best Regards, Ilya Kantor
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 03:46 PM, Ilya Kantor wrote: >> >> I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository: >> http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL >> >> There's no difference in the resulf of: >> git rebase --force-rebase 54a4 >> git rebase --no-ff 54a4 >> >> (rebases all 3 commits of feature) >> >> Also, there's no difference in interactive mode: >> git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4 >> git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4 >> >> (picks all 3 commits of feature) >> >> Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase? > > > So now that "rebase -i" respects --force-rebase, the question is what to do > about it: > > 1. Teach "rebase -i" to stop respecting --force-rebase (restoring the > original intent when --no-ff was introduced)? > > 2. Deprecate --no-ff? > > 3. Deprecate --force-rebase? > > As a heavy rebase user, I find --no-ff more intuitive than --force-rebase. > I'd be in favour of option 3, and keeping just --no-ff (with -f as a > synonym). > > M. > > >> --- >> Best Regards, >> Ilya Kantor >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: >>>>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." >>>>> >>>>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I found >>>> >>>> >>>> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 >>>> from 2010-03-24 >>> >>> >>> >>> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I >>> proposed >>> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding >>> a >>> new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user >>> interface >>> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run. >>> >>> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff. That >>> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c. >>> >>> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both >>> options >>> or deprecating one of them. >>> >>> M. >>> >>> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xiplink.com/t/ >>> [2] >>> >>> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com/ >>> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/ >>> >>> >>>> Teach rebase the --no-ff option. >>>> >>>> For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase. >>>> >>>> For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the >>>> commits >>>> in >>>> the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged >>>> commits. >>>> >>>> --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. >>>> Instead of >>>> "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate >>>> the >>>> branch >>>> with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least >>>> the >>>> committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert >>>> the >>>> reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. >>>> Added >>>> an >>>> addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and >>>> how to >>>> use --no-ff to handle it. >>>> >>>> which sounds as if there is? >>>> >>>> Stefan >>>> >>> >