Thomas Rast <tr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Please take a closer look at the last two test cases that specify the >> expected behaviour of rebasing a branch that tracks the empty tree. >> At this point they expect the "Nothing to do" error (aborts with >> untouched history). This is consistent with rebasing only empty >> commits without `--root`, which also doesn't just delete them from >> the history. Furthermore, I think the two alternatives adding a note >> that all commits in the range were empty, and removing the empty >> commits (thus making the branch empty) are better discussed in a >> separate bug report. > > Makes sense to me, though I have never thought much about rebasing empty > commits. Maybe Chris has a more informed opinion? I definitely agree with you both that --root should be (and isn't) consistent with normal interactive rebasing. The difference isn't deliberate on my part. On a personal note, I've always disliked the way interactive rebase stops when you pick an existing empty commit or empty log message rather than preserving it. Jumping through a few hoops is perhaps sensible when you create that kind of strange commit, but just annoying when picking an existing empty/logless commit as part of a series. But as you say, that's a separate issue than --root behaving differently to non --root. Cheers, Chris. -- 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