git-rebase uses format-patch's --ignore-if-in-upstream
option, but we never document the user-visible behavior. The
example is placed near the top of the example list rather
than at the bottom because it is:
a. a simple example
b. a reasonably common scenario for many projects (mail
some patches which get accepted upstream, then rebase)
[sp: Corrected direction of 'HEAD..<upstream>' set comparsion]
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
It was determined on the mailing list, that it makes more sense for a
"squash" to keep the author of the first commit as the author for the
result of the squash.
Make it so.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Pass --whitespace=<option> to git-apply. Since git-apply and git-am
expect this, I'm always surprised when I try to give it to git-rebase
and it doesn't work.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The interactive mode of rebase can be used to split commits. Tell the
interested parties about it, with a dedicated section in the man page.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The option "-p" (or long "--preserve-merges") makes it possible to
rebase side branches including merges, without straightening the
history.
Example:
X
\
A---M---B
/
---o---O---P---Q
When the current HEAD is "B", "git rebase -i -p --onto Q O" will yield
X
\
---o---O---P---Q---A'---M'---B'
Note that this will
- _not_ touch X [*1*], it does
- _not_ work without the --interactive flag [*2*], it does
- _not_ guess the type of the merge, but blindly uses recursive or
whatever strategy you provided with "-s <strategy>" for all merges it
has to redo, and it does
- _not_ make use of the original merge commit via git-rerere.
*1*: only commits which reach a merge base between <upstream> and HEAD
are reapplied. The others are kept as-are.
*2*: git-rebase without --interactive is inherently patch based (at
least at the moment), and therefore merges cannot be preserved.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Don't you just hate the fact sometimes, that git-rebase just applies
the patches, without any possibility to edit them, or rearrange them?
With "--interactive", git-rebase now lets you edit the list of patches,
so that you can reorder, edit and delete patches.
Such a list will typically look like this:
pick deadbee The oneline of this commit
pick fa1afe1 The oneline of the next commit
...
By replacing the command "pick" with the command "edit", you can amend
that patch and/or its commit message, and by replacing it with "squash"
you can tell rebase to fold that patch into the patch before that.
It is derived from the script sent to the list in
<Pine.LNX.4.63.0702252156190.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have
crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need
to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results
still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since `git add` is the approved porcelain for an end-user to invoke
when they want to manipulate the index, porcelain documentation
should steer the user to this command rather than the pure plumbing
update-index.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
It was mentioned on #git this morning that the lead-in description
of git-rebase is very confusing. Too many branch this and branch
that in a very short run of text.
This new description attempts to walk the user through the command
syntax, while also describing exactly what git-rebase is doing to
their repository.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Add -C[NUM] to git-am and git-rebase so that patches can be applied even
if context has changed a bit.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@mellanox.co.il>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This particular use of git-rebase to remove a single commit or a
range of commits from the history of a branch recently came up on
the mailing list. Documenting the example should help other users
arrive at the same solution on their own.
It also was not obvious to the newcomer that git-rebase is able to
accept any commit for --onto <newbase> and <upstream>. We should
at least minimally document this, as much of the language in
git-rebase's manpage refers to 'branch' rather than 'committish'.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Added example of transplantig feature branch from one development
branch (for example "next") into the other development branch (for
example "master").
[jc: talking Carl's advice this contains both examples sent to
the list by Jakub in his original message.]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Now that we control the merge base selection, we won't be forced
into rolling things in that we wanted to skip beforehand.
Also, add a test to ensure this all works as intended.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This solves the problem of rebasing local commits against an
upstream that has renamed files.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
git rebase [--onto <newbase>] <upstream> [<branch>]
git rebase --continue
git rebase --abort
Add "--continue" to restart the rebase process after
manually resolving conflicts. The user is warned if
there are still differences between the index and the
working files.
Add "--abort" to restore the original branch, and
remove the .dotest working files.
Some minor additions to the git-rebase documentation.
[jc: fix that applies to the maintenance track has been dealt
with separately.]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
I found a paper thin man page for git-rebase, but was quite happy to
see something much more useful in the usage statement of the script
when I went there to find out how this thing worked. Here it is
cleaned up slightly and expanded a bit into the actual documentation.
Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The replacement was performed automatically by these commands:
perl -pi -e 's/link:(git.+)\.html\[\1\]/gitlink:$1\[1\]/g' \
README Documentation/*.txt
perl -pi -e 's/link:git\.html\[git\]/gitlink:git\[7\]/g' \
README Documentation/*.txt
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
As promised, this is the "big tool rename" patch. The primary differences
since 0.99.6 are:
(1) git-*-script are no more. The commands installed do not
have any such suffix so users do not have to remember if
something is implemented as a shell script or not.
(2) Many command names with 'cache' in them are renamed with
'index' if that is what they mean.
There are backward compatibility symblic links so that you and
Porcelains can keep using the old names, but the backward
compatibility support is expected to be removed in the near
future.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Gitzilla updated bunch of undocumented command pages, so move the
entries in the main documentation index around to put them in proper
category. Ordering within category will be fixed later.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The text does not say anything interesting, but at least the
author list should reflect something close to reality.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Jeff King