summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/git-rebase.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2006-04-26rebase: typofix.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Noticed by Sean. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-13Shell utilities: Guard against expr' magic tokens.Libravatar Mark Wooding1-1/+1
Some words, e.g., `match', are special to expr(1), and cause strange parsing effects. Track down all uses of expr and mangle the arguments so that this isn't a problem. Signed-off-by: Mark Wooding <mdw@distorted.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-21Fix typo in git-rebase.sh.Libravatar Jason Riedy1-1/+1
s/upsteram/upstream in git-rebase.sh. Signed-off-by: Jason Riedy <ejr@cs.berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-21git-rebase: Clarify usage statement and copy it into the actual documentation.Libravatar Carl Worth1-10/+14
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>
2006-02-18Merge branch 'jc/rebase-limit'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-18/+71
* jc/rebase-limit: rebase: allow rebasing onto different base.
2006-02-14rebase: allow rebasing onto different base.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-18/+71
This allows you to rewrite history a bit more flexibly, by separating the other branch name and new branch point. By default, the new branch point is the same as the tip of the other branch as before, but you can specify where you graft the rebased branch onto. When you have this ancestry graph: A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master $ git rebase --onto master~1 master topic would rewrite the history to look like this: A'\''--B'\''--C'\'' topic / D---E---F---G master Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-13rebase: allow a hook to refuse rebasing.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+9
This lets a hook to interfere a rebase and help prevent certain branches from being rebased by mistake. A sample hook to show how to prevent a topic branch that has already been merged into publish branch. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-12-14Bugfixes for git-rebaseLibravatar Lukas Sandström1-11/+18
Fix bugs in git-rebase wrt rebasing another branch than the current HEAD, rebasing with a dirty working dir, and rebasing a proper decendant of the target branch. [jc: with a bit of hand-merging] Signed-off-by: Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-12-14rebase: do not get confused in fast-forward situation.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+3
When switching to another branch and rebasing it in a one-go, it failed to update the variable that holds the branch head, and did not detect fast-forward situation correctly. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-12-14git-rebase: Usage string clean-up, emit usage string at incorrect invocationLibravatar freku045@student.liu.se1-2/+3
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-11-28rebase: one safety net, one bugfix and one optimization.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+27
When a .dotest from a previously failed rebase or patch application exists, rebase got confused and tried to apply mixture of what was already there and what is being rebased. Check the existence of the directory and barf. It failed with an mysterious "fatal: cannot read mbox" message if the branch being rebased is fully in sync with the base. Also if the branch is a proper descendant of the base, there is no need to run rebase logic. Prevent these from happening by checking where the merge-base is. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-11-25git-sh-setup: die if outside git repository.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Now all the users of this script detect its exit status and die, complaining that it is outside git repository. So move the code that dies from all callers to git-sh-setup script. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-11-18Rewrite rebase to use git-format-patch piped to git-am.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-56/+16
The current rebase implementation finds commits in our tree but not in the upstream tree using git-cherry, and tries to apply them using git-cherry-pick (i.e. always use 3-way) one by one. Which is fine, but when some of the changes do not apply cleanly, it punts, and punts badly. Suppose you have commits A-B-C-D-E since you forked from the upstream and submitted the changes for inclusion. You fetch from upstream head U and find that B has been picked up. You run git-rebase to update your branch, which tries to apply changes contained in A-C-D-E, in this order, but replaying of C fails, because the upstream got changes that touch the same area from elsewhere. Now what? It notes that fact, and goes ahead to apply D and E, and at the very end tells you to deal with C by hand. Even if you somehow managed to replay C on top of the result, you would now end up with ...-B-...-U-A-D-E-C. Breaking the order between B and others was the conscious decision made by the upstream, so we would not worry about it, and even if it were worrisome, it is too late for us to fix now. What D and E do may well depend on having C applied before them, which is a problem for us. This rewrites rebase to use git-format-patch piped to git-am, and when the patch does not apply, have git-am fall back on 3-way merge. The updated diff/patch pair knows how to apply trivial binary patches as long as the pre- and post-images are locally available, so this should work on a repository with binary files as well. The primary benefit of this change is that it makes rebase easier to use when some of the changes do not replay cleanly. In the "unapplicable patch in the middle" case, this "rebase" works like this: - A series of patches in e-mail form is created that records what A-C-D-E do, and is fed to git-am. This is stored in .dotest/ directory, just like the case you tried to apply them from your mailbox. Your branch is rewound to the tip of upstream U, and the original head is kept in .git/ORIG_HEAD, so you could "git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD" in case the end result is really messy. - Patch A applies cleanly. This could either be a clean patch application on top of rewound head (i.e. same as upstream head), or git-am might have internally fell back on 3-way (i.e. it would have done the same thing as git-cherry-pick). In either case, a rebased commit A is made on top of U. - Patch C does not apply. git-am stops here, with conflicts to be resolved in the working tree. Yet-to-be-applied D and E are still kept in .dotest/ directory at this point. What the user does is exactly the same as fixing up unapplicable patch when running git-am: - Resolve conflict just like any merge conflicts. - "git am --resolved --3way" to continue applying the patches. - This applies the fixed-up patch so by definition it had better apply. "git am" knows the patch after the fixed-up one is D and then E; it applies them, and you will get the changes from A-C-D-E commits on top of U, in this order. I've been using this without noticing any problem, and as people may know I do a lot of rebases. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-09-28Use git-update-ref in scripts.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+3
This uses the git-update-ref command in scripts for safer updates. Also places where we used to read HEAD ref by using "cat" were fixed to use git-rev-parse. This will matter when we start using symbolic references. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2005-09-07Big tool rename.Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+68
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>