summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2020-05-05Doc: reference the "stash list" in autostash docsLibravatar Denton Liu1-1/+1
In documentation pertaining to autostash behavior, we refer to the "stash reflog". This description is too low-level as the reflog refers to an implementation detail of how the stash works and, for end-users, they do not need to be aware of this at all. Change references of "stash reflog" to "stash list", which should provide more accessible terminology for end-users. Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-05-01Merge branch 'en/rebase-root-and-fork-point-are-incompatible'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+5
Incompatible options "--root" and "--fork-point" of "git rebase" have been marked and documented as being incompatible. * en/rebase-root-and-fork-point-are-incompatible: rebase: display an error if --root and --fork-point are both provided
2020-04-29Merge branch 'dl/merge-autostash-rebase-quit-fix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+2
The stash entry created by "git rebase --autosquash" to keep the initial dirty state were discarded by mistake upon "git rebase --quit", which has been corrected. * dl/merge-autostash-rebase-quit-fix: rebase: save autostash entry into stash reflog on --quit
2020-04-28Merge branch 'en/rebase-doc-hooks-called-by-accident'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+11
"git rebase" happens to call some hooks meant for "checkout" and "commit" by this was not a designed behaviour than historical accident. This has been documented. * en/rebase-doc-hooks-called-by-accident: git-rebase.txt: add another hook to the hooks section, and explain more
2020-04-28rebase: save autostash entry into stash reflog on --quitLibravatar Denton Liu1-1/+2
In a03b55530a (merge: teach --autostash option, 2020-04-07), the --autostash option was introduced for `git merge`. Notably, when `git merge --quit` is run with an autostash entry present, it is saved into the stash reflog. This is contrasted with the current behaviour of `git rebase --quit` where the autostash entry is simply just dropped out of existence. Adopt the behaviour of `git merge --quit` in `git rebase --quit` and save the autostash entry into the stash reflog instead of just deleting it. Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-27rebase: display an error if --root and --fork-point are both providedLibravatar Elijah Newren1-2/+5
--root implies we want to rebase all commits since the beginning of history. --fork-point means we want to use the reflog of the specified upstream to find the best common ancestor between <upstream> and <branch> and only rebase commits since that common ancestor. These options are clearly contradictory, so throw an error (instead of segfaulting on a NULL pointer) if both are specified. Reported-by: Alexander Berg <alexander.berg@atos.net> Documentation-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-22Merge branch 'jt/rebase-allow-duplicate'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+23
Allow "git rebase" to reapply all local commits, even if the may be already in the upstream, without checking first. * jt/rebase-allow-duplicate: rebase --merge: optionally skip upstreamed commits
2020-04-22Merge branch 'en/rebase-no-keep-empty'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-16/+31
"git rebase" (again) learns to honor "--no-keep-empty", which lets the user to discard commits that are empty from the beginning (as opposed to the ones that become empty because of rebasing). The interactive rebase also marks commits that are empty in the todo. * en/rebase-no-keep-empty: rebase: fix an incompatible-options error message rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty rebase -i: mark commits that begin empty in todo editor
2020-04-22Merge branch 'dd/no-gpg-sign'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+4
"git rebase" learned the "--no-gpg-sign" option to countermand commit.gpgSign the user may have. * dd/no-gpg-sign: Documentation: document merge option --no-gpg-sign Documentation: merge commit-tree --[no-]gpg-sign Documentation: reword commit --no-gpg-sign Documentation: document am --no-gpg-sign cherry-pick/revert: honour --no-gpg-sign in all case rebase.c: honour --no-gpg-sign
2020-04-22Merge branch 'pb/rebase-doc-typofix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Typofix. * pb/rebase-doc-typofix: git-rebase.txt: fix typo
2020-04-11rebase --merge: optionally skip upstreamed commitsLibravatar Jonathan Tan1-2/+23
When rebasing against an upstream that has had many commits since the original branch was created: O -- O -- ... -- O -- O (upstream) \ -- O (my-dev-branch) it must read the contents of every novel upstream commit, in addition to the tip of the upstream and the merge base, because "git rebase" attempts to exclude commits that are duplicates of upstream ones. This can be a significant performance hit, especially in a partial clone, wherein a read of an object may end up being a fetch. Add a flag to "git rebase" to allow suppression of this feature. This flag only works when using the "merge" backend. This flag changes the behavior of sequencer_make_script(), called from do_interactive_rebase() <- run_rebase_interactive() <- run_specific_rebase() <- cmd_rebase(). With this flag, limit_list() (indirectly called from sequencer_make_script() through prepare_revision_walk()) will no longer call cherry_pick_list(), and thus PATCHSAME is no longer set. Refraining from setting PATCHSAME both means that the intermediate commits in upstream are no longer read (as shown by the test) and means that no PATCHSAME-caused skipping of commits is done by sequencer_make_script(), either directly or through make_script_with_merges(). Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11rebase: reinstate --no-keep-emptyLibravatar Elijah Newren1-17/+31
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was: 1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an override flag 2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with every rebase). While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial. Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving --keep-empty as the default. This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop commits they don't want with an interactive rebase. Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com> Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-11rebase -i: mark commits that begin empty in todo editorLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+2
While many users who intentionally create empty commits do not want them thrown away by a rebase, there are third-party tools that generate empty commits that a user might not want. In the past, users have used rebase to get rid of such commits (a side-effect of the fact that the --apply backend is not currently capable of keeping them). While such users could fire up an interactive rebase and just remove the lines corresponding to empty commits, that might be difficult if the third-party tool generates many of them. Simplify this task for users by marking such lines with a suffix of " # empty" in the todo list. Suggested-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-05git-rebase.txt: add another hook to the hooks section, and explain moreLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+11
For more discussion about these hooks, their history relative to rebase, and logical consistency between different types of operations, see https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BG0bFKUage5cN_2yr2DkmS04W2Z9Pg5WcROqHznV3XBdw@mail.gmail.com/ and the links to some threads referenced therein. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-04-03rebase.c: honour --no-gpg-signLibravatar Đoàn Trần Công Danh1-1/+4
Signed-off-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-28git-rebase.txt: fix typoLibravatar Philippe Blain1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-03-11git-rebase.txt: highlight backend differences with commit rewordingLibravatar Elijah Newren1-0/+10
As noted by Junio: Back when "git am" was written, it was not considered a bug that the "git am --resolved" option did not offer the user a chance to update the log message to match the adjustment of the code the user made, but honestly, I'd have to say that it is a bug in "git am" in that over time it wasn't adjusted to the new world order where we encourage users to describe what they did when the automation hiccuped by opening an editor. These days, even when automation worked well (e.g. a clean auto-merge with "git merge"), we open an editor. The world has changed, and so should the expectations. Junio also suggested providing a workaround such as allowing --no-edit together with git rebase --continue, but that should probably be done in a patch after the git-2.26.0 release. For now, just document the known difference in the Behavioral Differences section. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase: rename the two primary rebase backendsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-36/+41
Two related changes, with separate rationale for each: Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because: * 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones given that we are making it the default. * 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is. * the directory where state is stored is not called .git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge. Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because: * Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point. * Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems. * Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user tries to explain to another what they are doing. * While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too. * The directory where state is stored has never been called .git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply. For all the reasons listed above: * Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names * Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere (e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation) * Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply * Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new backend names for us as well. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase: change the default backend from "am" to "merge"Libravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+12
The am-backend drops information and thus limits what we can do: * lack of full tree information from the original commits means we cannot do directory rename detection and warn users that they might want to move some of their new files that they placed in old directories to prevent their becoming orphaned.[1] * reduction in context from only having a few lines beyond those changed means that when context lines are non-unique we can apply patches incorrectly.[2] * lack of access to original commits means that conflict marker annotation has less information available. * the am backend has safety problems with an ill-timed interrupt. Also, the merge/interactive backend have far more abilities, appear to currently have a slight performance advantage[3] and have room for more optimizations than the am backend[4] (and work is underway to take advantage of some of those possibilities). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh8jeh1id.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGiu2nVMQY_t-rnFR5GQUz_ipyEE8oDocKeO+h+t4Mn4A@mail.gmail.com/ [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/CABPp-BF=ev03WgODk6TMQmuNoatg2kiEe5DR__gJ0OTVqHSnfQ@mail.gmail.com/ [4] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGh7yW69QwxQb13K0HM38NKmQif3A6C6UULEKYnkEJ5vA@mail.gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase: add an --am optionLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+10
Currently, this option doesn't do anything except error out if any options requiring the interactive-backend are also passed. However, when we make the default backend configurable later in this series, this flag will provide a way to override the config setting. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16git-rebase.txt: add more details about behavioral differences of backendsLibravatar Elijah Newren1-5/+80
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become emptyLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+26
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses another such corner case: commits which "become empty". A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would become empty due to a rebase: * [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have "already been applied" upstream. * [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several upstream commits. Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case. When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise. For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create an empty commit with the commit message as-is. Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]: WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable, and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/ I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want for these commits. Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior: --empty={drop,keep,ask} with the definitions: drop: drop commits which become empty keep: keep commits which become empty ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified, pick defaults as follows: explicitly interactive: ask otherwise: drop Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-02-16rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the defaultLibravatar Elijah Newren1-11/+13
Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the --keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior. The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there directly applies here. It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare, which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with --allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have --keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure. Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/ which noted Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases. and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general how those flags should behave otherwise. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-01-17git-rebase.txt: update description of --allow-empty-messageLibravatar Elijah Newren1-3/+4
Commit b00bf1c9a8dd ("git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default", 2018-06-27) made --allow-empty-message the default and thus turned --allow-empty-message into a no-op but did not update the documentation to reflect this. Update the documentation now, and hide the option from the normal -h output since it is not useful. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-01-12Revert "Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-21/+6
This reverts commit 5d9324e0f4210bb7d52bcb79efe3935703083f72, reversing changes made to c58ae96fc4bb11916b62a96940bb70bb85ea5992. The topic turns out to be too buggy for real use. cf. <f2fe7437-8a48-3315-4d3f-8d51fe4bb8f1@gmail.com>
2019-12-10Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-6/+21
"git rebase -i" learned a few options that are known by "git rebase" proper. * ra/rebase-i-more-options: rebase -i: finishing touches to --reset-author-date rebase: add --reset-author-date rebase -i: support --ignore-date sequencer: rename amend_author to author_to_rename rebase -i: support --committer-date-is-author-date sequencer: allow callers of read_author_script() to ignore fields rebase -i: add --ignore-whitespace flag
2019-11-25rebase -i: finishing touches to --reset-author-dateLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+4
Clarify the way the `--reset-author-date` option is described, and mark its usage string translatable. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-12doc: improve readability of --rebase-merges in git-rebaseLibravatar Naveen Nathan1-2/+2
When --preserve-merges was deprecated in 427c3bd28a a sentence was introduced describing the difference between --rebase-merges and --preserve-merges which is a little unclear and difficult to parse. This patch improves readability while retaining original meaning. Signed-off-by: Naveen Nathan <naveen@lastninja.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-02rebase: add --reset-author-dateLibravatar Rohit Ashiwal1-0/+1
The previous commit introduced --ignore-date flag to interactive rebase, but the name is actually very vague in context of rebase -i since there are two dates we can work with. Add an alias to convey the precise purpose. Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-02rebase -i: support --ignore-dateLibravatar Rohit Ashiwal1-3/+3
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the author date by changing it to the committer (current) date. Let's add the same for interactive machinery. Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-02rebase -i: support --committer-date-is-author-dateLibravatar Rohit Ashiwal1-3/+7
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date by changing it to the author date. Let's add the same for interactive machinery. Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-02rebase -i: add --ignore-whitespace flagLibravatar Rohit Ashiwal1-2/+10
There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are implemented in one but not in the other. One such flag is --ignore-whitespace which indicates merge mechanism to treat lines with only whitespace changes as unchanged. Wire the interactive rebase to also understand the --ignore-whitespace flag by translating it to -Xignore-space-change. Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-30Merge branch 'dl/rebase-i-keep-base'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+27
"git rebase --keep-base <upstream>" tries to find the original base of the topic being rebased and rebase on top of that same base, which is useful when running the "git rebase -i" (and its limited variant "git rebase -x"). The command also has learned to fast-forward in more cases where it can instead of replaying to recreate identical commits. * dl/rebase-i-keep-base: rebase: teach rebase --keep-base rebase tests: test linear branch topology rebase: fast-forward --fork-point in more cases rebase: fast-forward --onto in more cases rebase: refactor can_fast_forward into goto tower t3432: test for --no-ff's interaction with fast-forward t3432: distinguish "noop-same" v.s. "work-same" in "same head" tests t3432: test rebase fast-forward behavior t3431: add rebase --fork-point tests
2019-09-30Merge branch 'en/filter-branch-deprecation'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+2
Start discouraging the use of "git filter-branch". * en/filter-branch-deprecation: t9902: use a non-deprecated command for testing Recommend git-filter-repo instead of git-filter-branch t6006: simplify, fix, and optimize empty message test
2019-09-18Merge branch 'js/rebase-r-strategy'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+0
"git rebase --rebase-merges" learned to drive different merge strategies and pass strategy specific options to them. * js/rebase-r-strategy: t3427: accelerate this test by using fast-export and fast-import rebase -r: do not (re-)generate root commits with `--root` *and* `--onto` t3418: test `rebase -r` with merge strategies t/lib-rebase: prepare for testing `git rebase --rebase-merges` rebase -r: support merge strategies other than `recursive` t3427: fix another incorrect assumption t3427: accommodate for the `rebase --merge` backend having been replaced t3427: fix erroneous assumption t3427: condense the unnecessarily repetitive test cases into three t3427: move the `filter-branch` invocation into the `setup` case t3427: simplify the `setup` test case significantly t3427: add a clarifying comment rebase: fold git-rebase--common into the -p backend sequencer: the `am` and `rebase--interactive` scripts are gone .gitignore: there is no longer a built-in `git-rebase--interactive` t3400: stop referring to the scripted rebase Drop unused git-rebase--am.sh
2019-09-05Recommend git-filter-repo instead of git-filter-branchLibravatar Elijah Newren1-1/+2
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>
2019-08-27rebase: teach rebase --keep-baseLibravatar Denton Liu1-3/+27
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>
2019-07-31rebase -r: support merge strategies other than `recursive`Libravatar Johannes Schindelin1-2/+0
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>
2019-07-09Merge branch 'nd/switch-and-restore'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Two new commands "git switch" and "git restore" are introduced to split "checking out a branch to work on advancing its history" and "checking out paths out of the index and/or a tree-ish to work on advancing the current history" out of the single "git checkout" command. * nd/switch-and-restore: (46 commits) completion: disable dwim on "git switch -d" switch: allow to switch in the middle of bisect t2027: use test_must_be_empty Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental help: move git-diff and git-reset to different groups doc: promote "git restore" user-manual.txt: prefer 'merge --abort' over 'reset --hard' completion: support restore t: add tests for restore restore: support --patch restore: replace --force with --ignore-unmerged restore: default to --source=HEAD when only --staged is specified restore: reject invalid combinations with --staged restore: add --worktree and --staged checkout: factor out worktree checkout code restore: disable overlay mode by default restore: make pathspec mandatory restore: take tree-ish from --source option instead checkout: split part of it to new command 'restore' doc: promote "git switch" ...
2019-07-09Merge branch 'pw/doc-synopsis-markup-opmode-options'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Docfix. * pw/doc-synopsis-markup-opmode-options: show --continue/skip etc. consistently in synopsis
2019-06-17show --continue/skip etc. consistently in synopsisLibravatar Phillip Wood1-1/+1
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>
2019-05-30Merge branch 'js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+3
A bit more leftover clean-up to deprepcate "rebase -p". * js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges: rebase docs: recommend `-r` over `-p` docs: say that `--rebase=preserve` is deprecated tests: mark a couple more test cases as requiring `rebase -p`
2019-05-28rebase docs: recommend `-r` over `-p`Libravatar Johannes Schindelin1-2/+3
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>
2019-04-16Merge branch 'pw/rerere-autoupdate'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+5
Doc updates. * pw/rerere-autoupdate: merge: tweak --rerere-autoupdate documentation am/cherry-pick/rebase/revert: document --rerere-autoupdate
2019-04-10Merge branch 'js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-11/+12
"git rebase --rebase-merges" replaces its old "--preserve-merges" option; the latter is now marked as deprecated. * js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges: rebase: deprecate --preserve-merges
2019-04-02doc: promote "git switch"Libravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-1/+1
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>
2019-03-18am/cherry-pick/rebase/revert: document --rerere-autoupdateLibravatar Phillip Wood1-0/+5
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>
2019-03-12rebase: deprecate --preserve-mergesLibravatar Johannes Schindelin1-11/+12
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>
2019-03-11Merge branch 'js/rebase-recreate-merge'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Docfix. * js/rebase-recreate-merge: rebase docs: fix "gitlink" typo
2019-03-01rebase docs: fix "gitlink" typoLibravatar Kyle Meyer1-1/+1
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>