Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 23/03/2023 16:22, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> The code's evolution left in some bits surrounding enum rebase_type that >> don't really make sense any more. In particular, it makes no sense to >> invoke imply_merge() if the type is already known not to be >> REBASE_APPLY, and it makes no sense to assign the type after calling >> imply_merge(). > > These look sensible, did imply_merges() use to do something more which > made these calls useful? Good question. >> @@ -1494,9 +1493,6 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, >> const char *prefix) >> } >> } >> - if (options.type == REBASE_MERGE) >> - imply_merge(&options, "--merge"); This piece is reasonable, of course. We already know we are in merge mode so there is nothing implied. Before this hunk, there is a bit of code to react to options.strategy given. The code complains if we are using the apply backend, and sets the options.type to REBASE_MERGE, which is suspiciously similar to what imply_merge() is doing. I wonder if the code should be simplified to make a call to imply_merge() while we are doing similar simplification like this patch does?
