On 17.04.23 10:21, Stefan Haller wrote: > The --update-refs option of git rebase is so useful that I have it on by > default in my config. For stacked branches I find it hard to think of > scenarios where I wouldn't want it. > > However, there are cases for non-stacked branches (i.e. other branches > pointing at the current HEAD) where updating them is undesirable. In > fact, pretty much always, for me. Two examples, both very similar: > > 1. I have a topic branch which is based off of master; I want to make a > copy of that branch and rebase it onto devel, just to try if that would > work. I don't want the original branch to be moved along in this case. > > 2. I have a topic branch, and I want to make a copy of it to make some > heavy history rewriting experiments. Again, my interactive rebases would > always rebase both branches in the same way, not what I want. In this > case I could work around it by doing the experiments on the original > branch, creating a tag beforehand that I could reset back to if the > experiments fail. But maybe I do want to keep both branches around for a > while for some reason. > > Both of these cases could be fixed by --update-refs not touching any > refs that point to the current HEAD. I'm having a hard time coming up > with cases where you would ever want those to be updated, in fact. Coming back to this after almost a year, I can say that I'm still running into this problem relatively frequently, and it is annoying every single time. Excluding refs pointing at the current head from being updated, as proposed above, would be a big usability improvement for me. And I now see that "git replay --contained --onto" has the same problem, which I find very unfortunate. In my opinion, "contained" should only include refs that form a stack, but not copies of the current branch. Of course, since branch stacks are only a heuristic and not a built-in concept, it's impossible for git to distinguish between a pair of copied branches and a degenerate stack whose top-most branch is (still) empty, as in the example in [1]. In my personal experience though, degenerate stacks like that are very rare, but copied branches are not, so for me it would make a lot of sense to change the behavior of both "rebase --update-refs" and "replay --contained". -Stefan [1] <https://public-inbox.org/git/ 98548a5b-7d30-543b-b943-fd48d8926a33@xxxxxxxxx/>
