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>
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>
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>
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>
A config option 'rebase.instructionFormat' can override the
default 'oneline' format of the rebase instruction list.
Since the list is parsed using the left, right or boundary mark plus
the sha1, they are prepended to the instruction format.
Signed-off-by: Michael Rappazzo <rappazzo@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
AsciiDoc misparses some text that contains a `literal`
word followed by a fancy `single quote' word, and treats
everything from the start of the literal to the end of the
quote as a single-quoted phrase.
We can work around this by switching the latter to be a
literal, as well. In the first case, this is perhaps what
was intended anyway, as it makes us consistent with the the
earlier literals in the same paragraph. In the second, the
output is arguably better, as we will format our commit
references as <code> blocks.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Ignoring a merge can be read as ignoring the changes a merge commit
introduces altogether, as if the entire side branch the merge commit
merged was removed from the history. But that is not what happens
if "-p" is not specified. What happens is that the individual
commits a merge commit introduces are replayed in order, and only
any possible merge conflict resolutions or manual amendments to the
merge commit are ignored.
Get this straight in the docs.
Also, do not say that merge commits are *tried* to be recreated. As that is
true almost everywhere it is better left unsaid.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This should improve readability. Compare "thislongname" and
"thisLongName". The following keys are left in unchanged. We can
decide what to do with them later.
- am.keepcr
- core.autocrlf .safecrlf .trustctime
- diff.dirstat .noprefix
- gitcvs.usecrlfattr
- gui.blamehistoryctx .trustmtime
- pull.twohead
- receive.autogc
- sendemail.signedoffbycc .smtpsslcertpath .suppresscc
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Running "git rebase" without giving a specific commit with respect
to which the operation is done enables --fork-point mode, while
telling the command to rebase with respect to a specific commit,
i.e. "git rebase <upstream>" does not.
This was not mentioned in the DESCRIPTION section of the manual
page, even though the case of omitted <upstream> was otherwise
discussed. That in turn made actual behavior of vanilla "git
rebase" hardly discoverable.
While we are at it, clarify the --fork-point description itself as
well.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Current syntax description makes one wonder if there is any
syntactic way to distinguish between <branch> and <upstream> so that
one can specify <branch> but not <upstream>, but that is not the
case.
Make it explicit that these arguments are positional, i.e. the
earlier ones cannot be omitted if you want to give later ones.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"Current branch is a descendant of the commit you are rebasing onto"
does not necessarily mean "rebase" requires "--force". For a plain
vanilla "history flattening" rebase, the rebase can be done without
forcing if there is a merge between the tip of the branch being
rebased and the commit you are rebasing onto, even if the tip is
descendant of the other.
[jc: reworded both the text and the log description]
Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mars-attacks.org>
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense that
'git rebase' defaults to the same thing.
but that isn't actually the case. Since commit d44e712 (pull: support
rebased upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19), pull has actually
chosen the most recent reflog entry which is an ancestor of the current
branch if it can find one.
Add a '--fork-point' argument to git-rebase that can be used to trigger
this behaviour. This option is turned on by default if no non-option
arguments are specified on the command line, otherwise we treat an
upstream specified on the command-line literally.
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
AsciiDoc's "link" is supposed to create hyperlinks for HTML output, so
prefer a "link" to point to an HTML file instead of a text file if an HTML
version of the file is being generated. For RelNotes, keep pointing to
text files as no equivalent HTML files are generated.
If appropriate, also update the link description to not contain the linked
file's extension.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In rebase -i --autosquash, ignore all "fixup! " or "squash! " after the
first. This supports the case when a git commit --fixup/--squash referred
to an earlier fixup/squash instead of the original commit (whether
intentionally, as when the user expressly meant to note that the commit
fixes an earlier fixup; or inadvertently, as when the user meant to refer to
the original commit with :/msg; or out of laziness, as when the user could
remember how to refer to the fixup but not the original).
In the todo list, the full commit message is preserved, in case it provides
useful cues to the user. A test helper set_cat_todo_editor is introduced to
check this.
Helped-by: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This new feature allows a rebase to be executed on a dirty worktree or
index. It works by creating a temporary "dangling merge commit" out
of the worktree and index changes (via 'git stash create'), and
automatically applying it after a successful rebase or abort.
rebase stores the SHA-1 hex of the temporary merge commit, along with
the rest of the rebase state, in either
.git/{rebase-merge,rebase-apply}/autostash depending on the kind of
rebase. Since $state_dir is automatically removed at the end of a
successful rebase or abort, so is the autostash.
The advantage of this approach is that we do not affect the normal
stash's reflogs, making the autostash invisible to the end-user. This
means that you can use 'git stash' during a rebase as usual.
When the autostash application results in a conflict, we push
$state_dir/autostash onto the normal stash and remove $state_dir
ending the rebase. The user can inspect the stash, and pop or drop at
any time.
Most significantly, this feature means that a caller like pull (with
pull.rebase set to true) can easily be patched to remove the
require_clean_work_tree restriction.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This allows users to edit the todo file while they're stopped in the
middle of an interactive rebase. When this action is executed, all
comments from the original todo file are stripped, and new help messages
are appended to the end.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Wong <andrew.kw.w@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Allow --root to be specified to rebase -i without --onto, making it
possible to edit and re-order all commits right back to the root(s).
If there is a conflict to be resolved when applying the first change,
the user will expect a sane index and working tree to get sensible
behaviour from git-diff and friends, so create a sentinel commit with an
empty tree to rebase onto. Automatically squash the sentinel with any
commits rebased directly onto it, so they end up as root commits in
their own right and retain their authorship and commit message.
Implicitly use rebase -i for non-interactive rebase of --root without
an --onto argument now that rebase -i can correctly do this.
Signed-off-by: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
During an interactive rebase session, it is sometimes desirable to
run tests on each commit in the resulting history. This can be done
by adding "exec <test command>" when editing the insn sheet, but the
command used for testing is often the same for all resulting commits.
By passing "--exec <cmd>" from the command line, automatically add
these "exec" lines after each commit in the final history. To work
well with the --autosquash option, these are added at the end of
each run of "fixup" and "squash".
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Lucien Kong <Lucien.Kong@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Valentin Duperray <Valentin.Duperray@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Franck Jonas <Franck.Jonas@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Nguy <Thomas.Nguy@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Huynh Khoi Nguyen Nguyen <Huynh-Khoi-Nguyen.Nguyen@ensimag.imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add a command line switch to git-rebase to allow a user the ability to specify
that they want to keep any commits in a series that are empty.
When git-rebase's type is am, then this option will automatically keep any
commit that has a tree object identical to its parent.
This patch changes the default behavior of interactive rebases as well. With
this patch, git-rebase -i will produce a revision set passed to
git-revision-editor, in which empty commits are commented out. Empty commits
may be kept manually by uncommenting them. If the new --keep-empty option is
used in an interactive rebase the empty commits will automatically all be
uncommented in the editor.
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
An alphabetic ordered list (a.) is converted to numerical in
the man page (1.) so context comments naming 'a' were confusing,
fix that by not using ordered list notation for 'a' anb 'b' items.
Signed-off-by: Nelson Benitez Leon <nelsonjesus.benitez@seap.minhap.es>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Michael Witten