On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > Hi, > > On 2008.02.19 11:05:40 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > > > > > when there's nothing to rebase (ie. upstream..branch is empty), rebase > > > fails to find any commits to rebase and correctly says "Nothing to do", > > > but when --onto is given, we already did a "reset --hard" to newbase, so > > > it already _did_ something. > > > > Yes, it did something. But if you had that: > > > > A - B - C - D - E > > \ > > F > > > > your HEAD was E, and you said "git rebase --onto F E" what exactly do you > > want it to do? There is no commit between E and E, so it rebases > > _nothing_ onto F. Which means that F should be your new state. > > Strictly, it's correct, but the "Nothing to do" message is a bit > misleading (IMHO) and the error message made me think, that it actually > didn't want to do anything. Yes, the message should probably be changed in that case. > I'm a bit unsure about rebase being degraded to a "reset --hard" in this > case is a good idea. Might be a nice user-protection to make rebase > abort when there's nothing to rebase and --onto is given. But I don't > care that much. The "reset --hard" in that case is really the correct behavior. Rebase might be used like 'git pull --rebase', and if your local branch contains no commits of your own then the 'git reset --hard' is really what needs to happen. The "user protection" lives in the reflog. Nicolas
