On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk >> <martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > you are right that >> > "git rebase --onto master foo~10 foo" could potentially filter out >> > patches already in foo..master, without calculating patch-ids for all >> > commits in master..foo for that matter. I think that would make sense >> >> you meant master..foo~10, didn't you ? > > Yes. (I actually did mean "all commits in master..foo", but "_any_ > commits in master..foo~10" is more clear and exact.) > >> please let me know when you submitting your work, I'm interested to see it. > > Will do. It's not really that much work, but I'm not sure when I will > have time for it. If you or anyone else is interested in doing it, you > are of course welcome. I'm a simple mortal user ;) > >> > necessary, we could have a flag to disable the filtering e.g. when the >> > user knows that master is part of a completely separate history from >> > foo. >> >> Can't git figure this out itself ? (I'm not saying the switch is useless) > > Yes, but this hypothetical flag would only be to speed things up by > avoid going to the roots to find out that the histories are disjoint. You're right but in my (mortal) experience, I'm always rebasing branches onto another one which is not disjoint, so I'm assuming it's the (very) common case, but I may be wrong. And what I'm assuming is correct, I think it's make more sense to do the filtering by default unless the flag tells to do otherwise. Thanks -- Francis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html