Hi, If that's indeed true (as far as I could see that, still can be mistaken), then as a git user, not developer, I'd stick to --no-ff, because it's the more intuitive naming. Just 5¢. --- Best Regards, Ilya Kantor On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2018-05-09 03:46 PM, Ilya Kantor wrote: >> >> I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository: >> http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL >> >> There's no difference in the resulf of: >> git rebase --force-rebase 54a4 >> git rebase --no-ff 54a4 >> >> (rebases all 3 commits of feature) >> >> Also, there's no difference in interactive mode: >> git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4 >> git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4 >> >> (picks all 3 commits of feature) >> >> Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase? > > > So now that "rebase -i" respects --force-rebase, the question is what to do > about it: > > 1. Teach "rebase -i" to stop respecting --force-rebase (restoring the > original intent when --no-ff was introduced)? > > 2. Deprecate --no-ff? > > 3. Deprecate --force-rebase? > > As a heavy rebase user, I find --no-ff more intuitive than --force-rebase. > I'd be in favour of option 3, and keeping just --no-ff (with -f as a > synonym). > > M. > > >> --- >> Best Regards, >> Ilya Kantor >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff: >>>>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase." >>>>> >>>>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I found >>>> >>>> >>>> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0 >>>> from 2010-03-24 >>> >>> >>> >>> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I >>> proposed >>> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding >>> a >>> new option [2]. Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user >>> interface >>> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run. >>> >>> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff. That >>> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c. >>> >>> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both >>> options >>> or deprecating one of them. >>> >>> M. >>> >>> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xxxxxxxxxxx/t/ >>> [2] >>> >>> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> >>>> Teach rebase the --no-ff option. >>>> >>>> For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase. >>>> >>>> For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the >>>> commits >>>> in >>>> the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged >>>> commits. >>>> >>>> --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges. >>>> Instead of >>>> "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate >>>> the >>>> branch >>>> with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least >>>> the >>>> committer time is different). This obviates the need to revert >>>> the >>>> reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly. >>>> Added >>>> an >>>> addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and >>>> how to >>>> use --no-ff to handle it. >>>> >>>> which sounds as if there is? >>>> >>>> Stefan >>>> >>> >
