Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] Will fix those. > I suspect doing 6/6 before this patch may make more sense. Yeah, I'd done it like that in the original (early preview thing). Allow me to explain why I flipped the ordering. The problem I am facing is that 6/6 causes very major breakages, and 5/6 attempts to minimize that fallout and make life for 6/6 easier. The problem with putting this patch (and the rebase -i) after those two is simple: it calls set_reflog_action, but never explicitly indicates that it wants to set the reflog message for checkout. As a result, the reflog messages are merely accidental and will look like: rebase rebase -i (start) in both the critical patches (5/6 and 6/6). This was an absolute debugging disaster for me, and I didn't know what wt-status was trying to tell me with its cryptic "detached HEAD to" and "detached HEAD from" messages. Makes sense? -- 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