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. Sorry for continuing to beat this dead horse, but I just can't help adding this other use case that I just ran into yesterday and that supports my point as well. Suppose I have a branch b, and I realize that it has commits for two separate features, so I want to split it up into two independent branches. The most natural way to do this is to create a branch b2 off of b, do an interactive rebase on b and drop half of its commits, then checkout b2, do an interactive rebase on it too and drop the other half of the commits. With rebase.updateRefs set to true, the first interactive rebase changes both b and b2, which is not what I want. Of course you can argue that since I'm doing an interactive rebase in this case, it's easy to see the update-ref todo and delete it if I don't want it. That's true, but it's an extra thing that I have to pay attention to. Also, there's a twist as I'm writing this from the perspective of lazygit again. Lazygit has a feature to drop commits from a branch without doing an interactive rebase; it runs an interactive rebase behind the scenes, sets the marked commits to "drop", and continues the rebase. I don't get a chance to delete the update-ref todo in this case. Now you can argue that this is really lazygit's problem then, and I can add code to it to delete the update-ref todo in this scenario if that's what I want. That's true again, and I will, but it bugs me that we have to add clients around stock git to get the desired behavior. I would prefer to change git so that it behaves in the desired way in the first place. And finally you can argue again that there's Phillip Wood's counter-example, where you create b2 off of b with the intention to create a stack, but before you make the first commit on b2 you realize there's this unwanted commit in b that you want to drop first. In this case you do want to update both b and b2. My take on this is that 1) it's a much more rare case in my experience, and 2) it's much easier to recover from. Once you realize that b2 wasn't updated by the rebase, you just reset --hard it to b again. This is a straight-forward operation that even novice git users know how to do. Compare this to having to reset b2 back to where it was when you realize that it was updated by the rebase and you didn't want it to; you need to get it back from the reflog in that case, which is a more advanced operation for many users. -Stefan
