Hello Junio, Monday, November 9, 2020, 8:11:46 PM, you wrote: > Eugen Konkov <kes-kes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> You start at branch dev. Then you use the two argument form >> >>> git rebase dev local/dev >> >>> and when you later >> >>> git rebase --abort >> >>> then you are not warped back to dev, but to local/dev: >> >> I suppose `git rebase --abort` should return me back to `dev`, because >> this is the state I was before the command. hmm... suppose it will not >> return to original branch when [branch] parameter is specified for git >> rebase > Yes, "git rebase [--onto C] A B" has always been a short-hand for > git checkout B > git rebase [--onto C] A > which means that if the second rebase step aborts, rebase wants to > go back to the state before the rebase started, i.e. immediately > after "checkout B" was done. > I think the root cause of the problem is that addition of the > "--autostash" feature (which came much later than the two-arg form) > was designed poorly. If it wanted to keep the "two-arg form is a > mere short-hand for checkout followed by rebase" semantics to avoid > confusing existing users (which is probably a good thing and that > seems to be what the code does), then the auto-stash should have > been added _after_ we switch to the branch we rebase, i.e. B. That > way, the stash would be applicable if the rebase gets aborted and > goes back to the original B, where the stash was taken from. > Of course, that would also mean that the original modification in > the working tree and the index may not allow you to move to branch B > (i.e. starting from your original branch O, and editing files in the > working tree, "git checkout B" may notice that you edited files that > are different between O and B and refuse to check out branch B to > prevent you from losing your local modifications), but that probably > is a good thing, if "two-arg form is a mere short-hand" paradigm is > to be kept. So, "use autostash and you can always rebase in a clean > state" would no longer hold. > Another thing we could have done when adding "--autostash", was to > redefine the meaning of the two-arg form. Then it starts to make > sense to take a stash _before_ switching to the branch to be rebased > (i.e. B), to go back to the original branch before switching to B, > and then to unstash on the working tree of the original branch that > is checked out after aborting. > Note that such an alternative design would have had its own issues. > With such a different semantics of two-arg form, if a rebase cleanly > finishes, instead of staying on the rebased branch B, we MUST go > back to the original branch to unstash what was autostashed. > Usually people expect after a rebase to play with the rebased state > (e.g. test build), so staying on branch B that was just rebased > would be far more usable than going back to unrelated original > branch (and possibly unstashing). > In any case, the ship has long sailed, so ... I should try that usecases to have an opinion on that. Currently I just add picture when `dev` is moved while rebasing. This does not occur when `local/dev` does not point to `dev` (when `local/dev/` and `dev` point different commits) Also I will try --onto and how it suits to my work flow. -- Best regards, Eugen Konkov
Attachment:
_3.jpg
Description: JPEG image
