On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:21 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Doing "git rebase -i master" and then editing the todo list has the
> > side effect of rebasing the branch. Often I find I want to amend or
> > reword a commit without rebasing (for instance when preparing a
> > re-roll).
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "not rebasing". Are you talking
> about --keep-base that uses the same --onto as the previous?
>
> I think that is often desired, but I do not think it has much to do
> with the topic of the proposal these two patches raises.
>
> And that (i.e. "this has nothing to do with the choice of 'onto'")
> was why I used the casual "rebase -i master" in my illustrations.
I know exactly what he means, because it usually is exactly what I
want to do here. In fact, I almost always want `rebase --interactive`
to do this "in-place" editing of the history. Sure, I may want to
`rebase @{upstream}` someday, but I seldom use --interactive for that.
Rebase invites conflicts. It's nice to invite as few as possible at once.
P
