Browse Source

Documentation: new upstream rebase recovery section in git-rebase

Document how to recover if the upstream that you pull from has
rebased the branches you depend your work on.  Hopefully this can also
serve as a warning to potential rebasers.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
maint
Thomas Rast 17 years ago committed by Junio C Hamano
parent
commit
90d1c08efc
  1. 130
      Documentation/git-rebase.txt

130
Documentation/git-rebase.txt

@ -257,11 +257,10 @@ include::merge-strategies.txt[] @@ -257,11 +257,10 @@ include::merge-strategies.txt[]

NOTES
-----
When you rebase a branch, you are changing its history in a way that
will cause problems for anyone who already has a copy of the branch
in their repository and tries to pull updates from you. You should
understand the implications of using 'git-rebase' on a repository that
you share.

You should understand the implications of using 'git-rebase' on a
repository that you share. See also RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
below.

When the git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a "pre-rebase"
hook if one exists. You can use this hook to do sanity checks and
@ -396,6 +395,127 @@ consistent (they compile, pass the testsuite, etc.) you should use @@ -396,6 +395,127 @@ consistent (they compile, pass the testsuite, etc.) you should use
after each commit, test, and amend the commit if fixes are necessary.


RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
-------------------------------

Rebasing (or any other form of rewriting) a branch that others have
based work on is a bad idea: anyone downstream of it is forced to
manually fix their history. This section explains how to do the fix
from the downstream's point of view. The real fix, however, would be
to avoid rebasing the upstream in the first place.

To illustrate, suppose you are in a situation where someone develops a
'subsystem' branch, and you are working on a 'topic' that is dependent
on this 'subsystem'. You might end up with a history like the
following:

------------
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
\
o---o---o---o---o subsystem
\
*---*---* topic
------------

If 'subsystem' is rebased against 'master', the following happens:

------------
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
\ \
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
\
*---*---* topic
------------

If you now continue development as usual, and eventually merge 'topic'
to 'subsystem', the commits from 'subsystem' will remain duplicated forever:

------------
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
\ \
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o'--M subsystem
\ /
*---*---*-..........-*--* topic
------------

Such duplicates are generally frowned upon because they clutter up
history, making it harder to follow. To clean things up, you need to
transplant the commits on 'topic' to the new 'subsystem' tip, i.e.,
rebase 'topic'. This becomes a ripple effect: anyone downstream from
'topic' is forced to rebase too, and so on!

There are two kinds of fixes, discussed in the following subsections:

Easy case: The changes are literally the same.::

This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase was a simple rebase and
had no conflicts.

Hard case: The changes are not the same.::

This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase had conflicts, or used
`\--interactive` to omit, edit, or squash commits; or if the
upstream used one of `commit \--amend`, `reset`, or
`filter-branch`.


The easy case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only works if the changes (patch IDs based on the diff contents) on
'subsystem' are literally the same before and after the rebase
'subsystem' did.

In that case, the fix is easy because 'git-rebase' knows to skip
changes that are already present in the new upstream. So if you say
(assuming you're on 'topic')
------------
$ git rebase subsystem
------------
you will end up with the fixed history
------------
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
\
o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
\
*---*---* topic
------------


The hard case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Things get more complicated if the 'subsystem' changes do not exactly
correspond to the ones before the rebase.

NOTE: While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful
even in the hard case, it may have unintended consequences. For
example, a commit that was removed via `git rebase
\--interactive` will be **resurrected**!

The idea is to manually tell 'git-rebase' "where the old 'subsystem'
ended and your 'topic' began", that is, what the old merge-base
between them was. You will have to find a way to name the last commit
of the old 'subsystem', for example:

* With the 'subsystem' reflog: after 'git-fetch', the old tip of
'subsystem' is at `subsystem@\{1}`. Subsequent fetches will
increase the number. (See linkgit:git-reflog[1].)

* Relative to the tip of 'topic': knowing that your 'topic' has three
commits, the old tip of 'subsystem' must be `topic~3`.

You can then transplant the old `subsystem..topic` to the new tip by
saying (for the reflog case, and assuming you are on 'topic' already):
------------
$ git rebase --onto subsystem subsystem@{1}
------------

The ripple effect of a "hard case" recovery is especially bad:
'everyone' downstream from 'topic' will now have to perform a "hard
case" recovery too!


Authors
------
Written by Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> and

Loading…
Cancel
Save