Le mar. 7 avr. 2020 à 20:03, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 10:28 AM Sami Boukortt <sami@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > […]
> >
> > Sadly, that is somewhat inconvenient, as those commits are not
> > actually “intentional” from my viewpoint (though I understand that git
> > has no way of knowing this), but rather created by another tool
> > (git-imerge), which means that I have to check each commit
>
> git-imerge creates non-merge commits? Is this in the case when it is
> acting like rebase? If so, is this possibly a bug in git-imerge (in
> that it doesn't drop commits which become empty)?
It is indeed with `git imerge rebase`. I don’t know enough about
git-imerge’s internals to know how easy that would be to fix, but it
does seem as though that would be the ideal approach.
> > individually and risk mistakes. The old `rebase -i` behavior, where
> > such commits were automatically commented out, would be an acceptable
> > compromise, or even a comment added at the end of the commit line (so
> > that they are still kept if the editor is closed without changing the
> > rebase list). If there are plans to eventually remove the “apply”
> > backend, could that workaround be considered?
>
> Automatically commenting them out is bad; that causes frustration for
> people having to uncomment all the commits they intended to add.
>
> But we could add some kind of option.
Instead of automatically commenting them out, how about automatically
annotating them while leaving them in the rebase list, like so:
pick 8441f42 Commit A
pick e3fcaf8 Commit B # empty
pick af34c53 Commit C
> > Alternatively, I could also use `git filter-branch` (with
> > `--prune-empty`), but apparently, its use is heavily discouraged.
>
> You could use
> git filter-repo --prune-empty always
That does seem like it would work, but wouldn’t it process the entire
repository (as opposed to filter-branch which can take a list of
revisions)?
