On 7/4/22 11:57 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: > Actually, I checked out ds/rebase-update-ref just now to try it, and > it seems like it does the right thing: > > pick 111111 first commit > pick 222222 second commit > fixup 555555 fixup! second commit > update-ref refs/heads/branch1 > > pick 333333 third commit > pick 444444 fourth commit Thanks for trying it out! This is definitely the main goal of the feature, although it is also helpful when resolving conflicts or doing 'edit' steps. > # Ref refs/heads/branch2 checked out at '...' > > The last line was very disorienting to me at first and made me think > we had a bug, but the update-refs stuff is built on top of the normal > rebase mechanism and branch2 will be updated by that logic rather than > by the special update-refs handling. If I add another branch with a > few commits on top of branch2, then branch2 is indeed updated and > after the pick of 444444 (and the additional branch, say branch3, > would be updated by the normal rebase logic instead of by the > update-refs handling). So it all works correctly, but users might get > worried or confused along the way wondering whether it will function > correctly. I'll add a patch that removes the comment in the case of the HEAD ref. Thanks for the idea! > Another part that users might find disorienting is that at the end, > the rebase reports: > Successfully rebased and updated refs/heads/branch2. > which is correct but totally ignores the fact that it *also* rebased > and updated other branches. Good point. I can add an extra message at the end (as well as a warning for any refs that did not properly update at the end). Thanks, -Stolee
