> I am not quite sure about the "cousins" thing. If at all, I would make > that a global option, I think. But then, maybe you have a use case in > mind where it would make sense to rebase cousins in some, but not in > other cases, cases that can be discerned via branch names? I wasn't sure about that either (in fact I don't think I knew it existed before looking in to this), but I included it here in an attempt to be "symmetrical" with the --rebase-merges flag functionality. Both pull.rebase and branch.<name>.rebase support the value "merges", so I think a rebase.merges config boolean is at least a no-brainer. In this case, though, it concerns me that you can set these to either "interactive" or "merges", so there's no way to have both. That's why I also suggest adding a ".rebaseMerges" option to these (to allow .rebase=interactive). I could imagine that there exists some workflows where --rebase-merges=rebase-cousins might be desired either globally or for certain branches, though I don't think it's something I'd use myself. I really need to play around with it in a test repo to better understand its implications. This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for, though. I'd be amenable to adding only the simple option (if there's any kind of consensus on that) since that's the one I really want to use myself. Thanks! Dakota On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:19 AM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Dakota, > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Dakota Hawkins wrote: > > > I'd like to work on a patch to add config options that correspond to > > rebase's --rebase-merges flag. > > > > In my workflow, while it's uncommon to encounter merge commits during > > a rebase operation, when they are encountered I pretty much always > > want this behavior. Since it's rare, I pretty much always forget to > > ask for it, with interesting and confusing consequences. > > > > If nobody has any opposition to the concept, the following are the > > specific options and values that I think makes sense and covers the > > existing functionality. > > I am in favor of this, as indicated at > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/318 > > > # New rebase.merges config that takes effect if set to true or cousins > > + rebase.merges= > > + true > > + cousins > > > > # New cousins value for pull.rebase > > pull.rebase= > > + cousins > > > > # New pull.rebaseMerges config that takes effect if set to true or > > # cousins. Intended to allow pull.rebase to be set to interactive. > > + pull.rebaseMerges= > > + true > > + cousins > > > > # Corresponding additions for branch.<name> config > > branch.<name>.rebase= > > + cousins > > branch.<name>.rebaseMerges= > > + true > > + cousins > > > > I'd like to get feedback on the idea and specific options proposed, > > if only to avoid having to tweak them once they've been added. > > I am not quite sure about the "cousins" thing. If at all, I would make > that a global option, I think. But then, maybe you have a use case in > mind where it would make sense to rebase cousins in some, but not in > other cases, cases that can be discerned via branch names? > > Ciao, > Johannes
