Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > @@ -280,8 +286,10 @@ other words, the sides are swapped. > + > Because 'git rebase' replays each commit from the working branch > on top of the <upstream> branch using the given strategy, using > -the 'ours' strategy simply discards all patches from the <branch>, > +the 'ours' strategy simply empties all patches from the <branch>, I think overall the direction this series takes, and especially what this step does---clarify what the current code & design does first before attempting to improve the status quo, makes sense, but I had trouble justifying this change. Do you want to emphasize that the operation discards the changes but still leaves empty commits, and "discards all patches" imply there won't be any commits left on top of the "onto" point? > which makes little sense. > ++ > +See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below. > @@ -487,6 +510,52 @@ recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so it can be remerged > successfully without needing to "revert the reversion" (see the > link:howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.html[revert-a-faulty-merge How-To] for details). > > +INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS > +-------------------- > + > +git-rebase has many flags that are incompatible with each other, > +predominantly due to the fact that it has three different underlying > +implementations: > + > + * one based on linkgit:git-am[1] (the default) > + * one based on linkgit:git-merge-recursive[1] (merge backend) > + * one based on linkgit:git-cherry-pick[1] (interactive backend) > + > +Flags only understood by the am backend: > + > + * --committer-date-is-author-date > + * --ignore-date > + * --whitespace > + * --ignore-whitespace > + * -C > + > +Flags understood by both merge and interactive backends: > + > + * --merge > + * --strategy > + * --strategy-option > + * --allow-empty-message > + > +Flags only understood by the interactive backend: > + > + * --[no-]autosquash > + * --rebase-merges > + * --preserve-merges > + * --interactive > + * --exec > + * --keep-empty > + * --autosquash > + * --edit-todo > + * --root when used in combination with --onto > + > +Other incompatible flag pairs: > + > + * --preserve-merges and --interactive > + * --preserve-merges and --signoff > + * --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges > + * --rebase-merges and --strategy > + * --rebase-merges and --strategy-option > + > include::merge-strategies.txt[] It is a bit unclear what these lists want to say. If --ignore-date is only understood by "rebase" and not "rebase -i", wouldn't that make "--interactive and --ignore-date" an incompatible flag pair? Or do you mean the "Other incompatible" list to enumerate the ones that are explicitly rejected, as opposed to getting silently ignored? In any case, I'll need to read through the remainder of the series to come to any conclusion, but given that -p is getting killed by its primary author, with help from others to split out its implementation from the --interactive codepath, it might be a bad time to do this series. Thanks for working on this topic.
