Am 4/26/2013 10:19, schrieb Yann Dirson: >> 2. git rebase -i master fails unless I've rebased my branch on top of >> master. I always wished I could do the equivalent of 'git rebase -i >> master..', but I can't. Can we give the A..B syntax a new meaning in >> the context of rebase, namely $(git merge-base A B)? > > If I understand well, you're refering to a problem that also annoys me, > ie. using "rebase -i" to just edit your local commits, without rebasing > onto the lastest revision on the upstream branch, right ? That is, just > another wart of having a single command for arguably-different use cases, > or of having the single-argument version of rebase use that argument for > 2 very different things (cut-off point and destination), but I won't try > to address either of these today :) > > In that case, what about just adding a new flag to "rebase -i", that would > prevent the single-argument to be interpreted as destination ? I really > consider this a workaround for a suboptimal CLI, but since we don't want > to change the rebase CLI before at least 2.0, that could fill the gap for now. > > As for the flag itself, what about --here ? Obviously it would only be > meaninglful together with -i, and be exclusive with --onto. How about this: Allow alternative spelling of git rebase -i master topic like this: git rebase -i master..topic (as always, the default for topic is HEAD). Then by extension (cf. git diff, where A...B shows the diff between the mergebase and B) git rebase -i master...topic would rebase onto the mergebase, which in practice will be the fork point of topic, i.e., a "non-rebasing rebase". -- Hannes -- 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