On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:07 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. It used to be called imply_interactive(), so --merge did require an interactive rebase. -- Felipe Contreras
