doc: git-rebase: clarify DESCRIPTION section #1949
Open
+137
−166
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Welcome to GitGitGadgetHi @jvns, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests. Please make sure that either:
You can CC potential reviewers by adding a footer to the PR description with the following syntax: NOTE: DO NOT copy/paste your CC list from a previous GGG PR's description, Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:
It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code. Contributing the patchesBefore you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form Both the person who commented An alternative is the channel Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail). If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
--url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txtTo iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description): To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: Need help?New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join [email protected], where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join. You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, |
|
There are issues in commit 1992c76: |
|
There are issues in commit 02ae00f: |
|
There are issues in commit 136f0d2: |
|
There are issues in commit 0b3f224: |
|
There are issues in commit 82b3419: |
|
/allow |
|
User jvns is now allowed to use GitGitGadget. |
|
/preview |
|
Preview email sent as [email protected] |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
![gitgitgadget[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12836?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -16,6 +16,26 @@ SYNOPSIS | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> Start with an example that mirrors the example in the `git-merge` man
> page, to make it easier for folks to understand the difference between a
> rebase and a merge.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 46 +++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> index 956d3048f5a6..fee73623990d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> @@ -16,6 +16,26 @@ SYNOPSIS
>
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
It is an excellent idea to start with what it does, before
explaining how you would drive it.
> +For example, assume the following history exists and the current branch is `topic`:
The line is a bit overly long, and the style a bit on the
"description of dry facts" side, which might want to give
a bit more "motivation" to help readers.
Here is my attempt.
Imagine that you have been working on the `topic` branch in this
history, and you'd want to "catch up" to the work done on the
`master` branch.
*** Illustration of "before" state ***
You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it
diverged from `master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current
`master`. You can do so by running `git rebase master` while the
`topic` branch is checked out. `git rebase master topic` works
as a short-cut to `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
*** Illustration of "after" state ***
perhaps?
Note that you lost the mention of `git rebase master topic` syntax
and the explanation that the form being a shorthand for checkout
followed by rebase, which I do not think appear anywhere else in the
document, so my suggested rewrite above resurrects it.
> +------------
> + A---B---C topic
> + /
> + D---E---F---G master
> +------------
> +
> +Then `git rebase master` will find all of the commits since `topic` diverged
> +from `master` and copy the changes in each of those commits on top of the
> +`master` branch.
> +
> +------------
> + A'--B'--C' topic
> + /
> + D---E---F---G master
> +------------
> +
> If `<branch>` is specified, `git rebase` will perform an automatic
> `git switch <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
> it remains on the current branch.
> @@ -58,32 +78,6 @@ that caused the merge failure with `git rebase --skip`. To check out the
> original `<branch>` and remove the `.git/rebase-apply` working files, use
> the command `git rebase --abort` instead.
>
> -Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":
> -
> -------------
> - A---B---C topic
> - /
> - D---E---F---G master
> -------------
> -
> -From this point, the result of either of the following commands:
> -
> -
> - git rebase master
> - git rebase master topic
> -
> -would be:
> -
> -------------
> - A'--B'--C' topic
> - /
> - D---E---F---G master
> -------------
> -
> -*NOTE:* The latter form is just a short-hand of `git checkout topic`
> -followed by `git rebase master`. When rebase exits `topic` will
> -remain the checked-out branch.
> -
> If the upstream branch already contains a change you have made (e.g.,
> because you mailed a patch which was applied upstream), then that commit
> will be skipped and warnings will be issued (if the 'merge' backend isThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, at 12:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>>
>> Start with an example that mirrors the example in the `git-merge` man
>> page, to make it easier for folks to understand the difference between a
>> rebase and a merge.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 46 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> index 956d3048f5a6..fee73623990d 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> @@ -16,6 +16,26 @@ SYNOPSIS
>>
>> DESCRIPTION
>> -----------
>> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
>
> It is an excellent idea to start with what it does, before
> explaining how you would drive it.
>
>> +For example, assume the following history exists and the current branch is `topic`:
>
> The line is a bit overly long, and the style a bit on the
> "description of dry facts" side, which might want to give
> a bit more "motivation" to help readers.
I'm very happy to hear that feedback: I thought it was very dry as well, but I copied that part from elsewhere in the man page because I thought that was git's preferred documentation style. I'll work on making it less dry.
> Note that you lost the mention of `git rebase master topic` syntax
> and the explanation that the form being a shorthand for checkout
> followed by rebase, which I do not think appear anywhere else in the
> document, so my suggested rewrite above resurrects it.
That's actually in PATCH 3/5 of this series: I also thought the explanation that the form being a shorthand for checkout followed by rebase was extremely clear so I moved it to be the primary explanation of what `git rebase <upstream> <branch>` does.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm very happy to hear that feedback: I thought it was very dry as
> well, but I copied that part from elsewhere in the man page
> because I thought that was git's preferred documentation
> style. I'll work on making it less dry.
[administrivia: please wrap your overlong lines; we write for this
hypothetiical reader on an 80-column terminal].
>> Note that you lost the mention of `git rebase master topic` syntax
>> and the explanation that the form being a shorthand for checkout
>> followed by rebase, which I do not think appear anywhere else in the
>> document, so my suggested rewrite above resurrects it.
>
> That's actually in PATCH 3/5 of this series:...
Which I think is too late; both are quite commonly used and useful,
so showing them upfront when the command line examples are first
introduced would be more preferrable.
Thanks.
| ------------ | ||
| A'--B'--C' topic | ||
| / | ||
| D---E---F---G master |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> +If there is a merge conflict during this process, `git rebase` will stop at the
> +first problematic commit and leave conflict markers. If this happens, you can:
By using the numbered enumeration below, we may mislead the readers
that these are the things they have to do in this order, when we
actually are giving them choices.
If this happens, you can do one of these things:
would be an easy workaround.
> +1. Resolve the conflict. You can use `git diff` to find the markers (<<<<<<)
> + and make edits to resolve the conflict. For each file you edit, you need to
> + tell Git that the conflict has been resolved. Typically this would be
> + done with
> +
> + git add <filename>
> +
> + You can then continue the rebasing process with
> +
> + git rebase --continue
The original (below) does not do a perfect job, but I am afraid that
this increases the chance of misunderstanding by new readers that
they'd run "continue" after marking each confclited fines as "done"
with "git add", by reducing a sentence to a mere "then" in "You can
then continue".
Typically after resolving all the conflicts in a single
file, you would tell Git that you are done with this file:
git add <filename>
And after dealing with all the conflicted files and telling
Git that you are done, you would continue the rebasing
process with
git rebase --continue
or something?
> +2. Stop the `git rebase` and return your branch to its original state with
> +
> + git rebase --abort
> +
> +3. Skip the commit that caused the merge conflict with
> +
> + git rebase --skip
The explanation in the above looks good, and the new organization is
much easier to follow and is definite improvement compared to the
original.
I am not sure how the above how the above formats, though,
especially on a medium that is not monospaced text (e.g., html
rendition, not "git help -m rebase" on terminals). The prose should
typeset just like the normal text (i.e. your "Transplant a series of
commits" in the previous step that starts the description section),
but the command that the users would type should be typeset in
monospace typewriter. Have you tried?
Thanks.
jvns
force-pushed
the
clarify-rebase
branch
6 times, most recently
from
96fc817 to
ad97cd9
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
| git rebase --abort | ||
| 3. Skip the commit that caused the merge conflict with | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> This removes the explanation of `git rebase <upstream> <branch>`, since
> it was already explained above that it's shorthand for `git switch
> <branch> && git rebase <upstream>`
We usually do not say "This [commit] does X". In this particular
case, since the objective is so obvious, we do not necessarily have
to follow the whole "summarize the current state, explain why it is
problematic, and then tell somebody sitting in front of a keyboard
to change the code in this and that way to make it improve" 9 yards;
just tweaking it into
Remove the redundant explanation of `git ...`, since it was
already explained earlier.
would be sufficient.
Although the proposed log message does not mention it, I actually
like the other change in this patch, that rephrases the "if you
don't specify...", even better. The addtional "to rebase onto" does
make the description clearer.
Thanks.
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 7 +------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> index a93c616f38b1..e700b92e35ac 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> @@ -59,12 +59,7 @@ one of these things:
>
> git rebase --skip
>
> -
> -If `<branch>` is specified, `git rebase` will perform an automatic
> -`git switch <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
> -it remains on the current branch.
> -
> -If `<upstream>` is not specified, the upstream configured in
> +If you don't specify an `<upstream>` to rebase onto, the upstream configured in
> `branch.<name>.remote` and `branch.<name>.merge` options will be used (see
> linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is
> assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current
| git rebase --skip | ||
| If you don't specify an `<upstream>` to rebase onto, the upstream configured in | ||
| `branch.<name>.remote` and `branch.<name>.merge` options will be used (see | ||
| linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is | ||
| assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - make it clearer that we're talking about three steps of a process
A good call. "First, then, then" does make it clear where each new
step begins. "First, then, finally" would make it even more obvious
which step concludes the sequence, though.
> - delete a duplicate explanation of how git rebase skips commits with
> the same textual changes (it's explained in more detail a few lines
> further down)
OK.
> - move the `ORIG_HEAD` note down so that it doesn't interrupt the
> discussion of the mechanics.
I thought you moved the "finally we reapply" up, instead of moving
the note down ;-) And when viewed that way, a more direct way to
justify this change is that you made sure these three steps are kept
together.
Again, good change.
> -All changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not
> +Here is a more detailed description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
> +
> +First, all changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not
> in `<upstream>` are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set
> of commits that would be shown by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`; or by
> `git log 'fork_point'..HEAD`, if `--fork-point` is active (see the
> description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the
> `--root` option is specified.
If we are ambitious, we may want to rewrite this first step to put
almost no stress on "saving" and "temporary area". Especially when
you rebase with merge backend, it would be morally a sequence of
cherry-pick, without us having to save anything---we only need to
figure out which commits to replay in what order.
First, the command figures out changes from which commits to
replay in what order. The set of commits are those shown by
`git log <base>..HEAD`, where <base> is the <upstream> if given,
or computed fork-point if the `--fork-point` option is active,
or all commits that lead to `HEAD` if `--root` is given.
> -The current branch is reset to `<upstream>` or `<newbase>` if the
> +Then the current branch is reset to `<upstream>` or `<newbase>` if the
> `--onto` option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as
> `git reset --hard <upstream>` (or `<newbase>`). `ORIG_HEAD` is set
> to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
"This has the exact same effect as" made my reading hiccup.
Then `git reset --hard` rewinds the current branch to the commit
given by `--onto`, if specified, or to `<upstream>`.
I am not sure if it is worth talking about ORIG_HEAD at this point,
as that is part of what `git reset --hard` does with this step.
Given especially that we have NOTE that says ORIG_HEAD cannot be
relied upon once the replaying of commits begin, mentioning the
value of ORIG_HEAD before the replaying begins does not seem to add
much value to the explanation.
> +Then the commits that were previously saved into the temporary area are
> +reapplied to the current branch, one by one, in order.
Yup. As I suggested, "Then" -> "Finally".
I do not know how much detail we want to give to readers, and I do
to prefer to tell some white lie in end-user facing documentation if
simplified description helps the initial understanding, so I am not
yet decided if I recommend rewriting these "three step" explanation,
but FYI, the modern rebase machinery works slightly differently:
First the command figures out what to replay, on which commit,
and in what order.
Then the HEAD is detached ("git checkout --detach <onto>") to
the commit the first change is replayed onto.
Then the changes are replayed, one by one, in the order.
Optionally a mergy history can be rebased while retaining
the topology.
Finally, the branch being rebased is made to point at the
resulting HEAD (i.e. equivalent to "git checkout -B <branch>"
to jump back from the detached HEAD state).
The difference between the simplified procedure and this "replaying
is done while on detached HEAD" procedure gives us a somewhat big
usability improvement, as a rebasing will be recorded in a single
reflog event for the branch getting rebased, no matter how many
commits are on the branch.
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@318d132. |
| @@ -16,6 +16,29 @@ SYNOPSIS | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Karthik Nayak wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> Start with an example that mirrors the example in the `git-merge` man
> page, to make it easier for folks to understand the difference between a
> rebase and a merge.
>
Happy to see these changes.
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 49 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> index 956d3048f5a6..449f01fba560 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> @@ -16,6 +16,29 @@ SYNOPSIS
>
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
> +
> +For example, imagine that you have been working on the `topic` branch in this
> +history, and you want to "catch up" to the work done on the `master` branch.
> +
> +------------
> + A---B---C topic
> + /
> + D---E---F---G master
> +------------
> +
> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
> +
Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
could s/checkout/switch here?
[snip]There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Ben Knoble wrote (reply to this):
> Le 11 août 2025 à 05:29, Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 49 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> index 956d3048f5a6..449f01fba560 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>> @@ -16,6 +16,29 @@ SYNOPSIS
>>
>> DESCRIPTION
>> -----------
>> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
>> +
>> +For example, imagine that you have been working on the `topic` branch in this
>> +history, and you want to "catch up" to the work done on the `master` branch.
>> +
>> +------------
>> + A---B---C topic
>> + /
>> + D---E---F---G master
>> +------------
>> +
>> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
>> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
>> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
>> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
>> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
>> +
>
> Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
> could s/checkout/switch here?
Junio previously recommended checkout (a prior version used switch): I suspect because checkout will detach head without extra syntax (where switch will not)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Phillip Wood wrote (reply to this):
On 11/08/2025 10:13, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>> +
>> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
>> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
>> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
>> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
>> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
>> +
> > Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
> could s/checkout/switch here?
Junio has already expressed a preference for "checkout" here c.f. <[email protected]>. I think that is technically correct as "topic" can be a commitish and "git switch <object-id>" fails without "--detach". Also rebase does not do any of the extra checks that "git switch" does before switching branches (I'm not saying that is necessarily a good thing).
Thanks
PhillipThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Karthik Nayak wrote (reply to this):
Ben Knoble <[email protected]> writes:
>> Le 11 août 2025 à 05:29, Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> a écrit :
>>
>> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 49 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>>> index 956d3048f5a6..449f01fba560 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
>>> @@ -16,6 +16,29 @@ SYNOPSIS
>>>
>>> DESCRIPTION
>>> -----------
>>> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
>>> +
>>> +For example, imagine that you have been working on the `topic` branch in this
>>> +history, and you want to "catch up" to the work done on the `master` branch.
>>> +
>>> +------------
>>> + A---B---C topic
>>> + /
>>> + D---E---F---G master
>>> +------------
>>> +
>>> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
>>> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
>>> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
>>> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
>>> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
>>> +
>>
>> Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
>> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
>> could s/checkout/switch here?
>
> Junio previously recommended checkout (a prior version used switch): I suspect because checkout will detach head without extra syntax (where switch will not)?
I totally missed that, that makes sense!There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Karthik Nayak wrote (reply to this):
Phillip Wood <[email protected]> writes:
> On 11/08/2025 10:13, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> +
>>> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
>>> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
>>> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
>>> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
>>> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
>>> +
>>
>> Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
>> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
>> could s/checkout/switch here?
>
> Junio has already expressed a preference for "checkout" here c.f.
> <[email protected]>. I think that is technically correct as
> "topic" can be a commitish and "git switch <object-id>" fails without
> "--detach". Also rebase does not do any of the extra checks that "git
> switch" does before switching branches (I'm not saying that is
> necessarily a good thing).
>
I missed that, but since we do mention that `topic` is a branch, it
still makes sense to use 'git switch'. But either way this is okay.
> Thanks
>
> PhillipThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
>>> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
>>> could s/checkout/switch here?
Besides, the reason why it is no longer experimental is *not*
because it has proved to be so much better than "checkout" and the
users are encouraged to use it.
It is no longer experimental only because it and its set of options
are now engraved in users' mustle memory deep enough that we can no
longer change it without disrupting users. We were hoping to
improve its end-user experience relative to "checkout", and allowed
it to deviate from the precendent that was set by "git checkout",
and that was the reason why "this is experimental. UI and behaviour
is subject to change" label was on it.
The experiment unfortunately was not a great success. There were
only a few meaningful differences invented during the experiment.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "D. Ben Knoble" wrote (reply to this):
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 5:11 AM Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Phillip Wood <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 11/08/2025 10:13, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> >> "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> +
> >>> +You want to transplant the commits you made on `topic` since it diverged from
> >>> +`master` (i.e. A, B, and C), on top of the current `master`. You can do this
> >>> +by running `git rebase master` while the `topic` branch is checked out. If you
> >>> +want to rebase `topic` while on another branch, `git rebase master topic` is a
> >>> +shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Nit: now that `git-switch(1)` is no longer experimental, we should start
> >> recommending it over `git-checkout(1)` as necessary. So perhaps, we
> >> could s/checkout/switch here?
> >
> > Junio has already expressed a preference for "checkout" here c.f.
> > <[email protected]>. I think that is technically correct as
> > "topic" can be a commitish and "git switch <object-id>" fails without
> > "--detach". Also rebase does not do any of the extra checks that "git
> > switch" does before switching branches (I'm not saying that is
> > necessarily a good thing).
> >
>
> I missed that, but since we do mention that `topic` is a branch, it
> still makes sense to use 'git switch'. But either way this is okay.
In the general case, it may not be a branch though. (Of course, that's
too confusing a detail for this section anyway.)
--
D. Ben KnobleThere was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"D. Ben Knoble" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > Junio has already expressed a preference for "checkout" here c.f.
>> > <[email protected]>. I think that is technically correct as
>> > "topic" can be a commitish and "git switch <object-id>" fails without
>> > "--detach".
I wanted the new documentation text to use what was already used in
the parts of the document that are not touched; otherwise we end up
with text that uses checkout in some places and switch in others,
which would invite confusions among uninitiated readers, who
rightfully would wonder what criteria were used to decide which one
among these two different commands to use. And teaching that these
two commands are quasi-equivalent with possibly subtle differences
is not what the documentation of "git rebase" needs to do---it is a
distraction.
I do not mind a new proposal to do a documentation sweep, aiming for
Git 3.0 timeframe, to examine all mentions of "git checkout" in the
documentation and replace them with "git switch" or "git restore"
when appropriate (there are of course ones that are not for obvious
reasons, like the ones in "git checkout" documentation itself, and
possibly in "git switch" and "git restore" documentation pages that
may say things like "'git switch X' is similar to 'git checkout Y'").
But let's leave that outside this topic.
Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Karthik Nayak wrote (reply to this):
Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> "D. Ben Knoble" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> > Junio has already expressed a preference for "checkout" here c.f.
>>> > <[email protected]>. I think that is technically correct as
>>> > "topic" can be a commitish and "git switch <object-id>" fails without
>>> > "--detach".
>
> I wanted the new documentation text to use what was already used in
> the parts of the document that are not touched; otherwise we end up
> with text that uses checkout in some places and switch in others,
> which would invite confusions among uninitiated readers, who
> rightfully would wonder what criteria were used to decide which one
> among these two different commands to use. And teaching that these
> two commands are quasi-equivalent with possibly subtle differences
> is not what the documentation of "git rebase" needs to do---it is a
> distraction.
>
> I do not mind a new proposal to do a documentation sweep, aiming for
> Git 3.0 timeframe, to examine all mentions of "git checkout" in the
> documentation and replace them with "git switch" or "git restore"
> when appropriate (there are of course ones that are not for obvious
> reasons, like the ones in "git checkout" documentation itself, and
> possibly in "git switch" and "git restore" documentation pages that
> may say things like "'git switch X' is similar to 'git checkout Y'").
>
I think this is the best way to tackle this.
> But let's leave that outside this topic.
>
Agreed.
> Thanks.
|
User |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
| @@ -16,6 +16,32 @@ SYNOPSIS | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - Start with an example that mirrors the example in the `git-merge` man
> page, to make it easier for folks to understand the difference between
> a rebase and a merge.
> - Mention that rebase can combine or reorder commits
The new comment added by this second point looks somewhat out of
place. With this patch as-is, the text talks only about the best
case of the basic usage, tell the reader to go elsewhere if they are
not interested in learning the basic usage, and then switches back
to the basic usage topic and talks about conflict resolution.
It may be easier to read if you covered the fact that there are two
major use cases upfront, perhaps like:
DESCRIPTION
-----------
Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
You can also use `git rebase` to reorder or combine commits: see
INTERACTIVE MODE below for how to do that.
For example, imagine ...
- Start with an example that mirrors the example in the `git-merge` man page, to make it easier for folks to understand the difference between a rebase and a merge. - Mention that rebase can combine or reorder commits Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
Previously there were two explanations, this combines them both into a single explanation. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
Remove duplicate explanation of `git rebase <upstream> <branch>` which is already explained above. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
There's a very clear explanation with examples of using --onto which is currently buried in the very long DESCRIPTION section. This moves it to its own section, so that we can reference the explanation from the `--onto` option by name. Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this), regarding 5ab235b (outdated): "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
>
> - make it clearer that we're talking about a multistep process
> - give a more technically accurate description how rebase works with the
> merge backend.
> - condense the explanation of how git rebase skips commits with the same
> textual changes into a single bullet point and remove the explanatory
> diagram. Lots of things which are more complicated are already being
> explained without a diagram.
> - remove the explanation of how exactly `--fork-point` and `--root`
> work since that information is in the OPTIONS section
> - put all discussion of `ORIG_HEAD` inside the note
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 66 ++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> index 750f5e67e4c3..b4e5519d2839 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc
> @@ -68,51 +68,31 @@ linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is
> assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current
> branch does not have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort.
>
> -All changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not
> -in `<upstream>` are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set
> -of commits that would be shown by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`; or by
> -`git log 'fork_point'..HEAD`, if `--fork-point` is active (see the
> -description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the
> -`--root` option is specified.
> -
> -The current branch is reset to `<upstream>` or `<newbase>` if the
> -`--onto` option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as
> -`git reset --hard <upstream>` (or `<newbase>`). `ORIG_HEAD` is set
> -to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
> +Here is a more detailed description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
Were there a sketchy description given elsewhere already? I
personally feel that giving too much details here would not
necessarily help readers' understanding. I'd prefer to see an
introduction read more like "The command conceptually does these
things in the following order", and leave the level of description
also to match that introduction. It may be just me, but when
somebody says "here is a detailed description", I would expect it to
contain little or no white lies mixed in, even for simplicity.
But of course others may have different opinions ;-)
> +1. Make a list of all commits in the current branch that are not in
> + `<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown by `git log
> + <upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to change how this
> + list of commits is constructed.
Didn't somebody mention "git log --cherry-pick <upstream>..HEAD"?
If omission of it is for simplicity, that is fine, but that is
another reason why we do not want to say "more detaild description".
Also, shouldn't there be step #0 that says "If the <branch> to rebase
is given, check out that branch and make it current", for the HEAD
in this description to work correctly?
> +2. Check whether any of those commits are duplicates of commits already
> + in `<upstream>`, remove them from the list, and print out a warning about
> + each removed commit. You can use `--reapply-cherry-picks` to include
> + duplicate commits.
This is done as part of #1 above as part of a single invocation of
revision walk (i.e. a loop in sequencer.c:sequencer_make_script()
that calls get_revision() repeatedly).
> +3. Check out `<upstream>` (or `<newbase>` if the `--onto` option was
> + supplied) with the equivalent of `git checkout --detach <upstream>`.
> +4. Replay the commits, one by one, in order. This is similar to running
> + `git cherry-pick <commit>` for each commit. See REBASING MERGES for how merges
> + are handled.
> +5. Update your branch to point to the final commit with the equivalent
> + of `git switch -C <branch>`.
In step #3, you switched to <upstream> with "git checkout"; here you
use "git switch". Uninitiated readers would wonder what criteria
were used to decide which one among these two different commands to
use in steps #3 and #5, even though either would work fine. Because
this page is not where readers come to learn about the equivalence
of these two commands that are not essential to learning "git
rebase", it is better, so once you started with "git checkout", to
stick to it throughout to reduce the mental burden to first-time
learners.
Thanks. |
jvns
force-pushed
the
clarify-rebase
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c3c3826 to
9c7f271
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> * move "You can also use git rebase to reorder or combine commits:" to the
> beginning
> * replace "detailed description" with "simplified description" -- I thought
> that I could write something that was relatively readable and also
> accurate, but as usual Git has proven me wrong :). I tried to leave in
> the details that I think seem relevant to using git: for example git
> checkout --detach is relevant because it explains why git reflog works
> well after a rebase.
> * replace the git switch with git checkout that I'd missed previously
>
> I didn't use the git log --cherry-pick option in the explanation because I
> had personally never heard of that option before today, and I don't want
> people to have to read the git log man page to be able to understand the
> explanation. I also left out --reapply-cherry-picks just because I don't
> understand the use case so I couldn't evaluate how likely it is to be
> relevant to the person reading.
I agree with the above decision to leave unnecessary implementation
details out, and I also agree with the decision to talk about
rebasing done on the detached HEAD. I will find out if I agree with
the remainder of details that are kept (and left out) later by
reading the patches ;-)
Thanks.
|
| If you don't specify an `<upstream>` to rebase onto, the upstream configured in | ||
| `branch.<name>.remote` and `branch.<name>.merge` options will be used (see | ||
| linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is | ||
| assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):
"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> +Here is a simplified description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
Now this is a "this is roughly how it works", we can afford to give
a simplified picture that may not exactly match the implementation,
which is great freedom to have while writing documentation for first
time users.
> +1. Make a list of all new commits on your current branch since it branched
> + off from `<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown
> + by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to
> + change how this list of commits is constructed.
> +2. Check whether any of those commits are duplicates of commits already
> + in `<upstream>` and remove them from the list.
So, I do not mind #2 described as a separate step. Conceptually, it
is between "create a list of all commits in the range and filter out
what have already been applied" and "create a list of all commits
that are not in the upstream yet". We may be able to rephrase "all
new commits on your current branch" somewhat to make it unnecessary
to describe #2, though. If we are willing to stop talking about
"This is the same set of ...", then the description becomes very
simple:
Make a list of all commits on your current branch since it
branched off from `<upstream>` that do not have equivalent
change in `<upstream>`.
> +3. Check out `<upstream>` with the equivalent of `git checkout --detach <upstream>`.
The line is getting overly long here and a few lines below. If your
editor has the feature, tell it to auto-wrap at around 66-72 column.
> +4. Replay the commits, one by one, in order. This is similar to running
> + `git cherry-pick <commit>` for each commit. See REBASING MERGES for how merges
> + are handled.
> +5. Update your branch to point to the final commit with the equivalent
> + of `git checkout -C <branch>`.
Force-create-branch while checking out is `git checkout -B
<branch>`, not -C.There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this):
> So, I do not mind #2 described as a separate step. Conceptually, it
> is between "create a list of all commits in the range and filter out
> what have already been applied" and "create a list of all commits
> that are not in the upstream yet". We may be able to rephrase "all
> new commits on your current branch" somewhat to make it unnecessary
> to describe #2, though. If we are willing to stop talking about
> "This is the same set of ...", then the description becomes very
> simple:
To me it feels relevant that `git rebase` is using two separate mechanisms to
compare commits: the sha and (I think?) what `git patch-id` does. As a user
it feels like an important distinction because normally when I look at my git
commits I only use the sha (via something like `git log --graph`) to see what
the new commits on a branch are.
Maybe the second part can be rephrased like this to emphasize that it's using a
different mechanism than the SHA:
> 2. Check whether any of those commits contain the same changes (according to
`git patch-id`) as a commit already in `<upstream>` and remove them from
the list.
> The line is getting overly long here and a few lines below. If your
> editor has the feature, tell it to auto-wrap at around 66-72 column.
Will fix, and I'll add a pre-commit hook to check for that.
> Force-create-branch while checking out is `git checkout -B
> <branch>`, not -C.
Will fix.
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@50183bd. |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] To fetch this version into To fetch this version to local tag |
|
On the Git mailing list, Phillip Wood wrote (reply to this): Hi Julia
On 11/08/2025 22:51, Julia Evans via GitGitGadget wrote:
> * move "You can also use git rebase to reorder or combine commits:" to the
> beginning
Great
> * replace "detailed description" with "simplified description" -- I thought
> that I could write something that was relatively readable and also
> accurate, but as usual Git has proven me wrong :). I tried to leave in
> the details that I think seem relevant to using git: for example git
> checkout --detach is relevant because it explains why git reflog works
> well after a rebase.
> * replace the git switch with git checkout that I'd missed previously
> > I didn't use the git log --cherry-pick option in the explanation because I
> had personally never heard of that option before today, and I don't want
> people to have to read the git log man page to be able to understand the
> explanation. I also left out --reapply-cherry-picks just because I don't
> understand the use case so I couldn't evaluate how likely it is to be
> relevant to the person reading.
The use case for --reapply-cherry-picks is mostly that it is faster to try picking a commit and then drop it if it results in a empty change than it is to do the patch-id comparisons to avoid picking the commit in the first place. This is especially true on partial clones where the cherry-pick detection is really slow. I'm happy to leave it out but I wonder if we should drop the references to --fork-point and --root as well given they're also both pretty niche. I'd also be very happy to go with Junio's suggestion to replace steps 1 & 2 with a general description that does not mention 'git log' at all.
Thanks
Phillip
> > Julia Evans (5):
> doc: git-rebase: start with an example
> doc: git rebase: dedup merge conflict discussion
> doc: git rebase: clarify arguments syntax
> doc: git-rebase: move --onto explanation down
> doc: git-rebase: update discussion of internals
> > Documentation/git-rebase.adoc | 302 +++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 136 insertions(+), 166 deletions(-)
> > > base-commit: 2c2ba49d55ff26c1082b8137b1ec5eeccb4337d1
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1949%2Fjvns%2Fclarify-rebase-v6
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1949/jvns/clarify-rebase-v6
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1949
> > Range-diff vs v5:
> > 1: c2f2e05078f ! 1: e7a8fbbe53c doc: git-rebase: start with an example
> @@ Documentation/git-rebase.adoc: SYNOPSIS
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
> +Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point.
> ++You can also use `git rebase` to reorder or combine commits: see INTERACTIVE
> ++MODE below for how to do that.
> +
> +For example, imagine that you have been working on the `topic` branch in this
> +history, and you want to "catch up" to the work done on the `master` branch.
> @@ Documentation/git-rebase.adoc: SYNOPSIS
> + D---E---F---G master
> +------------
> +
> -+You can also use `git rebase` to reorder or combine commits: see INTERACTIVE
> -+MODE below for how to do that.
> +
> If `<branch>` is specified, `git rebase` will perform an automatic
> `git switch <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
> 2: 5459b7ff560 ! 2: ad63f69918d doc: git rebase: dedup merge conflict discussion
> @@ Commit message
> > ## Documentation/git-rebase.adoc ##
> @@ Documentation/git-rebase.adoc: shortcut for `git checkout topic && git rebase master`.
> - You can also use `git rebase` to reorder or combine commits: see INTERACTIVE
> - MODE below for how to do that.
> + ------------
> +
> > +If there is a merge conflict during this process, `git rebase` will stop at the
> +first problematic commit and leave conflict markers. If this happens, you can do
> 3: 948c205f1e6 = 3: 7ee6b0afe88 doc: git rebase: clarify arguments syntax
> 4: e229b9fccb2 = 4: 4686417b28e doc: git-rebase: move --onto explanation down
> 5: 5ab235b067b ! 5: 9c7f2716bc8 doc: git-rebase: update discussion of internals
> @@ Documentation/git-rebase.adoc: linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--for
> -`--onto` option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as
> -`git reset --hard <upstream>` (or `<newbase>`). `ORIG_HEAD` is set
> -to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
> -+Here is a more detailed description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
> ++Here is a simplified description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
> +
> -+1. Make a list of all commits in the current branch that are not in
> -+ `<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown by `git log
> -+ <upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to change how this
> -+ list of commits is constructed.
> ++1. Make a list of all new commits on your current branch since it branched
> ++ off from `<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown
> ++ by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to
> ++ change how this list of commits is constructed.
> +2. Check whether any of those commits are duplicates of commits already
> -+ in `<upstream>`, remove them from the list, and print out a warning about
> -+ each removed commit. You can use `--reapply-cherry-picks` to include
> -+ duplicate commits.
> -+3. Check out `<upstream>` (or `<newbase>` if the `--onto` option was
> -+ supplied) with the equivalent of `git checkout --detach <upstream>`.
> ++ in `<upstream>` and remove them from the list.
> ++3. Check out `<upstream>` with the equivalent of `git checkout --detach <upstream>`.
> +4. Replay the commits, one by one, in order. This is similar to running
> + `git cherry-pick <commit>` for each commit. See REBASING MERGES for how merges
> + are handled.
> +5. Update your branch to point to the final commit with the equivalent
> -+ of `git switch -C <branch>`.
> ++ of `git checkout -C <branch>`.
> > [NOTE]
> -`ORIG_HEAD` is not guaranteed to still point to the previous branch tip
> |
|
On the Git mailing list, "Julia Evans" wrote (reply to this): > The use case for --reapply-cherry-picks is mostly that it is faster to
> try picking a commit and then drop it if it results in a empty change
> than it is to do the patch-id comparisons to avoid picking the commit in
> the first place. This is especially true on partial clones where the
> cherry-pick detection is really slow.
That makes sense, thank you!
> I'm happy to leave it out but I
> wonder if we should drop the references to --fork-point and --root as
> well given they're also both pretty niche. I'd also be very happy to go
> with Junio's suggestion to replace steps 1 & 2 with a general
> description that does not mention 'git log' at all.
I like the idea of leaving out `--fork-point` and `--root`.
Now that I know the use case for `--reapply-cherry-picks`: what I like about
leaving in the `git log` description is that I think it makes it easier for
folks to build a mental model of why a `git rebase` might be slow: there's a
"fast step" (the `git log` step) and a "slow step" (the `git patch-id` step).
Then even if we don't mention `--reapply-cherry-picks` in this section, a user
could infer that there might be a way to speed up the "slow step", and find the
`--reapply-cherry-picks` option to speed it up. Maybe we could mention that the
`git patch-id` step can be slow in some cases.
(also I might have misunderstood the "fast step" and the "slow step" thing,
I'd be interested to know if so) |
- make it clearer that we're talking about a multistep process - give a more technically accurate description how rebase works with the merge backend. - condense the explanation of how git rebase skips commits with the same textual changes into a single bullet point and remove the explanatory diagram. Lots of things which are more complicated are already being explained without a diagram. - remove the explanation of how exactly `--fork-point` and `--root` work since that information is in the OPTIONS section - put all discussion of `ORIG_HEAD` inside the note Signed-off-by: Julia Evans <[email protected]>
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Julia Evans" <[email protected]> writes:
>> well given they're also both pretty niche. I'd also be very happy to go
>> with Junio's suggestion to replace steps 1 & 2 with a general
>> description that does not mention 'git log' at all.
>
> I like the idea of leaving out `--fork-point` and `--root`.
>
> Now that I know the use case for `--reapply-cherry-picks`: what I like about
> leaving in the `git log` description is that I think it makes it easier for
> folks to build a mental model of why a `git rebase` might be slow: there's a
> "fast step" (the `git log` step) and a "slow step" (the `git patch-id` step).
But that is not what goes on, is it? What you wrote as if they were
two separate steps (1 to enumerate, 2 to filter) is not what happens
in practice. Whether it is done via the "format-patch --stdout | am"
pipeline in run_am(), or via the "rev-list --reverse | xargs -n1
cherry-pick" pipeline in run_sequencer_rebase(), the upstream of
these conceptual pipelines that enumerates what is to be replayed is
run just once, i.e. there is only one step that "enumerates what is
to be replayed", without a separate filtering step.
In other words, there is no "a fast step followed by a slow step".
Perhaps squashing the first two steps into one and phrasing them as
a single step is sufficient to give a conceptual overview (what you
have in v7 as "a simplified description of what the command does").
1. Make a list of all commits on your current branch since it
branched off from `<upstream>` that do not have equivalent
change in `<upstream>`.
If you want to keep 1 & 2 separate, then rephrase the introductory
sentence to clarify that we are giving a white lie for the sake of
easier understanding, e.g.
Here is what conceptually happens in "git rebase":
or something. |
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this), regarding 79f29ad (outdated): "Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes:
> +Here is a simplified description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does:
> +
> +1. Make a list of all new commits on your current branch since it branched
> + off from `<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown
> + by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to
> + change how this list of commits is constructed.
> +2. Check whether any of those commits contain the same changes (according to
> + `git patch-id`) as a commit already in `<upstream>` and remove them from
> + the list.
I'd suggest three things
* Rewrite the introductory text to
Here is what "git rebase <upstream> [<branch>]" conceptually does:
* Add step 0. to make "your current branch" in the next step valid.
0. When <branch> is given, check it out and make it your current
branch.
* Combine the steps 1 & 2. and stop talking about "git log" whose
invocation cannot be precisely described here anyway.
Other than that, the remainder of the series (v7 [1-4/5]) looked
good.
THanks. |
|
This branch is now known as |
|
This patch series was integrated into seen via git@7cf45d4. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
git patch-id(or the equivalent) to compare commits instead of using the SHA.cc: "D. Ben Knoble" [email protected]
cc: Phillip Wood [email protected]
cc: Patrick Steinhardt [email protected]
cc: Karthik Nayak [email protected]