On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:31:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:11:32PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: [snip] > > "--keep-empty" has always been about keeping an originally empty > > commit, not a commit that becomes empty because of rebasing > > (i.e. what has already been applied to the updated base). The > > documentation, if it leads to any other interpretation, needs to be > > fixed. > > > > Besides, if "--keep-empty" were to mean "keep redundant ones that > > are already in the updated base", the patch must do a lot more, > > e.g. stop filtering with git-cherry patch equivalence. > > > > I'm inclined to eject this topic. > > That was my thinking too (and I notice it didn't get any review from > anybody else). [snip] Well, I kind of agree. The cherry-pick command has both --allow-empty and --keep-redundant flags, where the second one is the kind of behavior I want to achieve in my case. As an alternative to the proposed change to `--keep-empty` I could instead introduce a new flag `--keep-redundant-commits` to `git rebase` which would then pass the flag through to the cherry-pick. Any opinions on this? Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature