filter-branch suffers from a deluge of disguised dangers that disfigure
history rewrites (i.e. deviate from the deliberate changes). Many of
these problems are unobtrusive and can easily go undiscovered until the
new repository is in use. This can result in problems ranging from an
even messier history than what led folks to filter-branch in the first
place, to data loss or corruption. These issues cannot be backward
compatibly fixed, so add a warning to both filter-branch and its manpage
recommending that another tool (such as filter-repo) be used instead.
Also, update other manpages that referenced filter-branch. Several of
these needed updates even if we could continue recommending
filter-branch, either due to implying that something was unique to
filter-branch when it applied more generally to all history rewriting
tools (e.g. BFG, reposurgeon, fast-import, filter-repo), or because
something about filter-branch was used as an example despite other more
commonly known examples now existing. Reword these sections to fix
these issues and to avoid recommending filter-branch.
Finally, remove the section explaining BFG Repo Cleaner as an
alternative to filter-branch. I feel somewhat bad about this,
especially since I feel like I learned so much from BFG that I put to
good use in filter-repo (which is much more than I can say for
filter-branch), but keeping that section presented a few problems:
* In order to recommend that people quit using filter-branch, we need
to provide them a recomendation for something else to use that
can handle all the same types of rewrites. To my knowledge,
filter-repo is the only such tool. So it needs to be mentioned.
* I don't want to give conflicting recommendations to users
* If we recommend two tools, we shouldn't expect users to learn both
and pick which one to use; we should explain which problems one
can solve that the other can't or when one is much faster than
the other.
* BFG and filter-repo have similar performance
* All filtering types that BFG can do, filter-repo can also do. In
fact, filter-repo comes with a reimplementation of BFG named
bfg-ish which provides the same user-interface as BFG but with
several bugfixes and new features that are hard to implement in
BFG due to its technical underpinnings.
While I could still mention both tools, it seems like I would need to
provide some kind of comparison and I would ultimately just say that
filter-repo can do everything BFG can, so ultimately it seems that it
is just better to remove that section altogether.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We already support merge strategies in the sequencer, but only for
`pick` commands.
With this commit, we now also support them in `merge` commands. The
approach is simple: if any merge strategy option is specified, or if any
merge strategy other than `recursive` is specified, we simply spawn the
`git merge` command. Otherwise, we handle the merge in-process just as
before.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Command mode options that the user can choose one among many are
listed like this in the documentation:
git am (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)
They are listed on a single line and in parenthesis, because they
are not optional.
But documentation pages for some commands deviate from this norm.
Fix the merge and rebase docs to match this style.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The `--preserve-merges` option is now deprecated in favor of
`--rebase-merges`; Let's stop recommending the former.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The new command "git switch" is added to avoid the confusion of
one-command-do-all "git checkout" for new users. They are also helpful
to avoid ambiguation context.
For these reasons, promote it everywhere possible. This includes
documentation, suggestions/advice from other commands...
The "Checking out files" progress line in unpack-trees.c is also updated
to "Updating files" to be neutral to both git-checkout and git-switch.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This option was missing from the man pages of these commands.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have something much better now: --rebase-merges (which is a
complete re-design --preserve-merges, with a lot of issues fixed such as
the inability to reorder commits with --preserve-merges).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Change it to "linkgit" so that the reference is properly rendered.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since commit 8fe9c3f21d (Merge branch 'en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer',
2019-02-06), --merge now uses the interactive backend (and matches its
behavior) so there is no separate merge backend anymore. Fix an
oversight in the docs that should have been updated with the previous
change.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --autosquash option is implied by the earlier --[no-]autosquash
entry in the list.
Signed-off-by: Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emilio@crisal.io>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch was contributed only as a tentative "we could introduce a
convenient short option if we do not want to change the default behavior
in the long run" patch, opening the discussion whether other people
agree with deprecating the current behavior in favor of the rescheduling
behavior.
But the consensus on the Git mailing list was that it would make sense
to show a warning in the near future, and flip the default
rebase.rescheduleFailedExec to reschedule failed `exec` commands by
default. See e.g.
<CAGZ79kZL5CRqCDRb6B-EedUm8Z_i4JuSF2=UtwwdRXMitrrOBw@mail.gmail.com>
So let's back out that patch that added the `-y` short option that we
agreed was not necessary or desirable.
This reverts commit 81ef8ee75d.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior,
modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by
re-implementing it on top of the latter.
Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the
recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge
strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is
not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and
git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and
instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c.
This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes:
* The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples)
* A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421)
* bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of
REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use;
this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with
the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to
know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903)
testcase modification notes:
t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation
t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect
--merge and --interactive to have the same output.
t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo!
t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
now REBASE-i.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is a bit cumbersome to write out the `--reschedule-failed-exec`
option before `-x <cmd>` all the time; let's introduce a convenient
option to do both at the same time: `-y <cmd>`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A common use case for the `--exec` option is to verify that each commit
in a topic branch compiles cleanly, via `git rebase -x make <base>`.
However, when an `exec` in such a rebase fails, it is not re-scheduled,
which in this instance is not particularly helpful.
Let's offer a flag to reschedule failed `exec` commands.
Based on an idea by Paul Morelle.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Delete a misplaced word introduced by caafecfcf1 (rebase
--rebase-merges: adjust man page for octopus support, 2018-03-09).
Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In commit 6aba117d5c ("am: avoid directory rename detection when
calling recursive merge machinery", 2018-08-29), the git-rebase manpage
probably should have also been updated to note the stronger
incompatibility between git-am and directory rename detection. Update
it now.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The text body of section Behavioral Differences is typeset as code,
but should be regular text. Remove the indentation to achieve that.
While here, prettify the language:
- use "the x backend" instead of "x-based rebase";
- use present tense instead of future tense;
and use subsections instead of a list.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 'edit' command can be used to cherry-pick a commit and then
immediately drop out of the interactive rebase, with exit code 0, to let
the user amend the commit, or test it, or look around.
Sometimes this functionality would come in handy *without*
cherry-picking a commit, e.g. to interrupt the interactive rebase even
before cherry-picking a commit, or immediately after an 'exec' or a
'merge'.
This commit introduces that functionality, as the spanking new 'break'
command.
Suggested-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We had not documented previously what happens when an `exec` command in
an interactive rebase fails. Now we do.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that we support octopus merges in the `--rebase-merges` mode,
we should give users who actually read the manuals a chance to know
about this fact.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
rebase backends currently behave differently with empty commit messages,
largely as a side-effect of the different underlying commands on which
they are based. am-based rebases apply commits with an empty commit
message without stopping or requiring the user to specify an extra flag.
(It is interesting to note that am-based rebases are the default rebase
type, and no one has ever requested a --no-allow-empty-message flag to
change this behavior.) merge-based and interactive-based rebases (which
are ultimately based on git-commit), will currently halt on any such
commits and require the user to manually specify what to do with the
commit and continue.
One possible rationale for the difference in behavior is that the purpose
of an "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an existing history, while
an "interactive" rebase is one whose purpose is to polish a series before
making it publishable. Thus, stopping and asking for confirmation for a
possible problem is more appropriate in the latter case. However, there
are two problems with this rationale:
1) merge-based rebases are also non-interactive and there are multiple
types of rebases that use the interactive machinery but are not
explicitly interactive (e.g. when either --rebase-merges or
--keep-empty are specified without --interactive). These rebases are
also used solely to transplant an existing history, and thus also
should default to --allow-empty-message.
2) this rationale only says that the user is more accepting of stopping
in the case of an explicitly interactive rebase, not that stopping
for this particular reason actually makes sense. Exploring whether
it makes sense, requires backing up and analyzing the underlying
commands...
If git-commit did not error out on empty commits by default, accidental
creation of commits with empty messages would be a very common occurrence
(this check has caught me many times). Further, nearly all such empty
commit messages would be considered an accidental error (as evidenced by a
huge amount of documentation across version control systems and in various
blog posts explaining how important commit messages are). A simple check
for what would otherwise be a common error thus made a lot of sense, and
git-commit gained an --allow-empty-message flag for special case
overrides. This has made commits with empty messages very rare.
There are two sources for commits with empty messages for rebase (and
cherry-pick): (a) commits created in git where the user previously
specified --allow-empty-message to git-commit, and (b) commits imported
into git from other version control systems. In case (a), the user has
already explicitly specified that there is something special about this
commit that makes them not want to specify a commit message; forcing them
to re-specify with every cherry-pick or rebase seems more likely to be
infuriating than helpful. In case (b), the commit is highly unlikely to
have been authored by the person who has imported the history and is doing
the rebase or cherry-pick, and thus the user is unlikely to be the
appropriate person to write a commit message for it. Stopping and
expecting the user to modify the commit before proceeding thus seems
counter-productive.
Further, note that while empty commit messages was a common error case for
git-commit to deal with, it is a rare case for rebase (or cherry-pick).
The fact that it is rare raises the question of why it would be worth
checking and stopping on this particular condition and not others. For
example, why doesn't an interactive rebase automatically stop if the
commit message's first line is 2000 columns long, or is missing a blank
line after the first line, or has every line indented with five spaces, or
any number of other myriad problems?
Finally, note that if a user doing an interactive rebase does have the
necessary knowledge to add a message for any such commit and wants to do
so, it is rather simple for them to change the appropriate line from
'pick' to 'reword'. The fact that the subject is empty in the todo list
that the user edits should even serve as a way to notify them.
As far as I can tell, the fact that merge-based and interactive-based
rebases stop on commits with empty commit messages is solely a by-product
of having been based on git-commit. It went without notice for a long
time precisely because such cases are rare. The rareness of this
situation made it difficult to reason about, so when folks did eventually
notice this behavior, they assumed it was there for a good reason and just
added an --allow-empty-message flag. In my opinion, stopping on such
messages not desirable in any of these cases, even the (explicitly)
interactive case.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
rebase was taught the --force-rebase option in commit b2f82e05de ("Teach
rebase to rebase even if upstream is up to date", 2009-02-13). This flag
worked for the am and merge backends, but wasn't a valid option for the
interactive backend.
rebase was taught the --no-ff option for interactive rebases in commit
b499549401 ("Teach rebase the --no-ff option.", 2010-03-24), to do the
exact same thing as --force-rebase does for non-interactive rebases. This
commit explicitly documented the fact that --force-rebase was incompatible
with --interactive, though it made --no-ff a synonym for --force-rebase
for non-interactive rebases. The choice of a new option was based on the
fact that "force rebase" didn't sound like an appropriate term for the
interactive machinery.
In commit 6bb4e485cf ("rebase: align variable names", 2011-02-06), the
separate parsing of command line options in the different rebase scripts
was removed, and whether on accident or because the author noticed that
these options did the same thing, the options became synonyms and both
were accepted by all three rebase types.
In commit 2d26d533a0 ("Documentation/git-rebase.txt: -f forces a rebase
that would otherwise be a no-op", 2014-08-12), which reworded the
description of the --force-rebase option, the (no-longer correct) sentence
stating that --force-rebase was incompatible with --interactive was
finally removed.
Finally, as explained at
https://public-inbox.org/git/98279912-0f52-969d-44a6-22242039387f@xiplink.com
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.
We have accepted both --no-ff and --force-rebase as full synonyms for all
three rebase types for over seven years. Documenting them differently
and in ways that suggest they might not be quite synonyms simply leads to
confusion. Adjust the documentation to match reality.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are a variety of aspects that are common to all rebases regardless
of which backend is in use; however, the behavior for these different
aspects varies in ways that could surprise users. (In fact, it's not
clear -- to me at least -- that these differences were even desirable or
intentional.) Document these differences.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Last sections are squashed into non-formatted block after adding
"REBASING MERGES".
To reproduce the error see bottom of page:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Parfinenko <vparfinenko@excelsior-usa.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git rebase has many options that only work with one of its three backends.
It also has a few other pairs of incompatible options. Document these.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The standard for command documentation synopses appears to be:
[...] means optional
<...> means replaceable
[<...>] means both optional and replaceable
So fix a number of doc pages that use incorrect variations of the
above.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --rebase-merges mode is probably not half as intuitive to use as
its inventor hopes, so let's document it some.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When running `git rebase --rebase-merges` non-interactively with an
ancestor of HEAD as <upstream> (or leaving the todo list unmodified),
we would ideally recreate the exact same commits as before the rebase.
However, if there are commits in the commit range <upstream>.. that do not
have <upstream> as direct ancestor (i.e. if `git log <upstream>..` would
show commits that are omitted by `git log --ancestry-path <upstream>..`),
this is currently not the case: we would turn them into commits that have
<upstream> as direct ancestor.
Let's illustrate that with a diagram:
C
/ \
A - B - E - F
\ /
D
Currently, after running `git rebase -i --rebase-merges B`, the new branch
structure would be (pay particular attention to the commit `D`):
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
D'
This is not really preserving the branch topology from before! The
reason is that the commit `D` does not have `B` as ancestor, and
therefore it gets rebased onto `B`.
This is unintuitive behavior. Even worse, when recreating branch
structure, most use cases would appear to want cousins *not* to be
rebased onto the new base commit. For example, Git for Windows (the
heaviest user of the Git garden shears, which served as the blueprint
for --rebase-merges) frequently merges branches from `next` early, and
these branches certainly do *not* want to be rebased. In the example
above, the desired outcome would look like this:
--- C' --
/ \
A - B ------ E' - F'
\ /
-- D' --
Let's introduce the term "cousins" for such commits ("D" in the
example), and let's not rebase them by default. For hypothetical
use cases where cousins *do* need to be rebased, `git rebase
--rebase=merges=rebase-cousins` needs to be used.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Once upon a time, this here developer thought: wouldn't it be nice if,
say, Git for Windows' patches on top of core Git could be represented as
a thicket of branches, and be rebased on top of core Git in order to
maintain a cherry-pick'able set of patch series?
The original attempt to answer this was: git rebase --preserve-merges.
However, that experiment was never intended as an interactive option,
and it only piggy-backed on git rebase --interactive because that
command's implementation looked already very, very familiar: it was
designed by the same person who designed --preserve-merges: yours truly.
Some time later, some other developer (I am looking at you, Andreas!
;-)) decided that it would be a good idea to allow --preserve-merges to
be combined with --interactive (with caveats!) and the Git maintainer
(well, the interim Git maintainer during Junio's absence, that is)
agreed, and that is when the glamor of the --preserve-merges design
started to fall apart rather quickly and unglamorously.
The reason? In --preserve-merges mode, the parents of a merge commit (or
for that matter, of *any* commit) were not stated explicitly, but were
*implied* by the commit name passed to the `pick` command.
This made it impossible, for example, to reorder commits. Not to mention
to move commits between branches or, deity forbid, to split topic branches
into two.
Alas, these shortcomings also prevented that mode (whose original
purpose was to serve Git for Windows' needs, with the additional hope
that it may be useful to others, too) from serving Git for Windows'
needs.
Five years later, when it became really untenable to have one unwieldy,
big hodge-podge patch series of partly related, partly unrelated patches
in Git for Windows that was rebased onto core Git's tags from time to
time (earning the undeserved wrath of the developer of the ill-fated
git-remote-hg series that first obsoleted Git for Windows' competing
approach, only to be abandoned without maintainer later) was really
untenable, the "Git garden shears" were born [*1*/*2*]: a script,
piggy-backing on top of the interactive rebase, that would first
determine the branch topology of the patches to be rebased, create a
pseudo todo list for further editing, transform the result into a real
todo list (making heavy use of the `exec` command to "implement" the
missing todo list commands) and finally recreate the patch series on
top of the new base commit.
That was in 2013. And it took about three weeks to come up with the
design and implement it as an out-of-tree script. Needless to say, the
implementation needed quite a few years to stabilize, all the while the
design itself proved itself sound.
With this patch, the goodness of the Git garden shears comes to `git
rebase -i` itself. Passing the `--rebase-merges` option will generate
a todo list that can be understood readily, and where it is obvious
how to reorder commits. New branches can be introduced by inserting
`label` commands and calling `merge <label>`. And once this mode will
have become stable and universally accepted, we can deprecate the design
mistake that was `--preserve-merges`.
Link *1*:
https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/blob/master/share/msysGit/shears.sh
Link *2*:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/shears.sh
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Allow --signoff to be used with --interactive and --merge. In
interactive mode only commits marked to be picked, edited or reworded
will be signed off.
The main motivation for this patch was to allow one to run 'git rebase
--exec "make check" --signoff' which is useful when preparing a patch
series for publication and is more convenient than doing the signoff
with another --exec command.
This change also allows --root without --onto to work with --signoff
as well (--root with --onto was already supported).
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The new command `git rebase --show-current-patch` is useful for seeing
the commit related to the current rebase state. Some however may find
the "git show" command behind it too limiting. You may want to
increase context lines, do a diff that ignores whitespaces...
For these advanced use cases, the user can execute any command they
want with the new pseudo ref REBASE_HEAD.
This also helps show where the stopped commit is from, which is hard
to see from the previous patch which implements --show-current-patch.
Helped-by: Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is useful to see the full patch while resolving conflicts in a
rebase. The only way to do it now is
less .git/rebase-*/patch
which could turn out to be a lot longer to type if you are in a
linked worktree, or not at top-dir. On top of that, an ordinary user
should not need to peek into .git directory. The new option is
provided to examine the patch.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This option allows commits with empty commit messages to be rebased,
matching the same option in git-commit and git-cherry-pick. While empty
log messages are frowned upon, sometimes one finds them in older
repositories (e.g. translated from another VCS [0]), or have other
reasons for desiring them. The option is available in git-commit and
git-cherry-pick, so it is natural to make other git tools play nicely
with them. Adding this as an option allows the default to be "give the
user a chance to fix", while not interrupting the user's workflow
otherwise [1].
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/q/8542304
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/7vd33afqjh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
To implement this, add a new --allow-empty-message flag. Then propagate
it to all calls of 'git commit', 'git cherry-pick', and 'git rebase--helper'
within the rebase scripts.
Signed-off-by: Genki Sky <sky@genki.is>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Move all rebase.* configuration variables to a separate file in order to
remove duplicates, and include it in config.txt and git-rebase.txt. The
new descriptions are mostly taken from config.txt as they are more
verbose.
Signed-off-by: Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Follow the Oxford style, which says to use "up-to-date" before the noun,
but "up to date" after it. Don't change plumbing (specifically
send-pack.c, but transport.c (git push) also has the same string).
This was produced by grepping for "up-to-date" and "up to date". It
turned out we only had to edit in one direction, removing the hyphens.
Fix a typo in Documentation/git-diff-index.txt while we're there.
Reported-by: Jeffrey Manian <jeffrey.manian@gmail.com>
Reported-by: STEVEN WHITE <stevencharleswhitevoices@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This operation has quadratic complexity, which is especially painful
on Windows, where shell scripts are *already* slow (mainly due to the
overhead of the POSIX emulation layer).
Let's reimplement this with linear complexity (using a hash map to
match the commits' subject lines) for the common case; Sadly, the
fixup/squash feature's design neglected performance considerations,
allowing arbitrary prefixes (read: `fixup! hell` will match the
commit subject `hello world`), which means that we are stuck with
quadratic performance in the worst case.
The reimplemented logic also happens to fix a bug where commented-out
lines (representing empty patches) were dropped by the previous code.
While at it, clarify how the fixup/squash feature works in `git rebase
-i`'s man page.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The first illustration of the "RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE"
section in the 'git-rebase' documentation meant to depict that
there are number of commits on the 'master' branch, but it is
longer than the 'master' branch in the following illustrations
by one commit, even though there is no resetting of 'master' to
lose that commit.
Correct it.
Signed-off-by: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Most of the time, a 'stash entry' is called a 'stash'. Lets try to make
this more consistent and use 'stash entry' instead.
Signed-off-by: Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This makes it easy to sign off a whole patchset before submission.
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are occasions when you decide to abort an in-progress rebase and
move on to do something else but you forget to do "git rebase --abort"
first. Or the rebase has been in progress for so long you forgot about
it. By the time you realize that (e.g. by starting another rebase)
it's already too late to retrace your steps. The solution is normally
rm -r .git/<some rebase dir>
and continue with your life. But there could be two different
directories for <some rebase dir> (and it obviously requires some
knowledge of how rebase works), and the ".git" part could be much
longer if you are not at top-dir, or in a linked worktree. And
"rm -r" is very dangerous to do in .git, a mistake in there could
destroy object database or other important data.
Provide "git rebase --quit" for this use case, mimicking a precedent
that is "git cherry-pick --quit".
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Similarly to the previous commit, use backquotes instead of
forward-quotes, for long options.
This was obtained with:
perl -pi -e "s/'(--[a-z][a-z=<>-]*)'/\`\$1\`/g" *.txt
and manual tweak to remove false positive in ascii-art (o'--o'--o' to
describe rewritten history).
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the later steps of preparing a patch series I do not want to
edit or reorder the patches any more, but just make sure the
test suite passes after each patch and also to fix breakage
right there if some of the steps fail. I could run
EDITOR=true git rebase -i <anchor> -x "make test"
but it would be simpler if it can be spelled like so:
git rebase <anchor> -x "make test"
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The wording is introduced in c3f0baaca (Documentation: sync git.txt
command list and manual page title, 2007-01-18), but rebase has evolved
since then, capture the modern usage by being more generic about the
rebase command in the summary.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Improve the documentation of commands taking optional arguments in two
ways:
* Documents the behavior of '-O' (for grep) and '-S' (for commands
creating commits) when used without the optional argument.
* Document the syntax of these options.
For the second point, the behavior is documented in gitcli(7), but it is
easy for users to miss, and hard for the same user to understand why e.g.
"git status -u no" does not work.
Document this explicitly in the documentation of each short option having
an optional argument: they are the most error prone since there is no '='
sign between the option and its argument.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
All of the other "--option" and "--no-option" pairs in this file are
formatted as separate options.
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Check if commits were removed (i.e. a line was deleted) and print
warnings or stop git rebase depending on the value of the
configuration variable rebase.missingCommitsCheck.
This patch gives the user the possibility to avoid silent loss of
information (losing a commit through deleting the line in this case)
if he wants.
Add the configuration variable rebase.missingCommitsCheck.
- When unset or set to "ignore", no checking is done.
- When set to "warn", the commits are checked, warnings are
displayed but git rebase still proceeds.
- When set to "error", the commits are checked, warnings are
displayed and the rebase is stopped.
(The user can then use 'git rebase --edit-todo' and
'git rebase --continue', or 'git rebase --abort')
rebase.missingCommitsCheck defaults to "ignore".
Signed-off-by: Galan Rémi <remi.galan-alfonso@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Instead of removing a line to remove the commit, you can use the
command "drop" (just like "pick" or "edit"). It has the same effect as
deleting the line (removing the commit) except that you keep a visual
trace of your actions, allowing a better control and reducing the
possibility of removing a commit by mistake.
Signed-off-by: Galan Rémi <remi.galan-alfonso@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Elijah Newren