On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 08:01:44PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > In this sort of situation, I often whish to be able to do nested rebases. > > Even more because it happen relatively often that I forget that I'm > > working in a rebase and not on the head, and then it's quite natural > > to me to type things like 'git rebase -i @^^^' while already rebasing. > > But I suppose this has already been discussed. > > Varieties of this have been discussed, but no, not nested rebases. > > The closest we thought about was re-scheduling the latest <n> commits, > which is now harder because of the `--rebase-merges` mode. > > But I think it would be doable. Your idea of a "nested" rebase actually > opens that door quite nicely. It would not *really* be a nested rebase, > and it would still only be possible in interactive mode, but I could > totally see > > git rebase --nested -i HEAD~3 > > to generate and prepend the following lines to the `git-rebase-todo` file: > > reset abcdef01 # This is HEAD~3 > pick abcdef02 # This is HEAD~2 > pick abcdef03 # This is HEAD~ > pick abcdef04 # This is HEAD > > (assuming that the latest 3 commits were non-merge commits; It would look > quite a bit more complicated in other situations.)
Yeah, I would probably use that if it existed. It would be nicer to have real nested sequencer operations, I think, for other situations. E.g., cherry-picking a sequence of commits while you're in the middle of a rebase. But I suspect getting that right would be _loads_ more work, and probably would involve some funky UI corner cases to handle the stack of operations (so truly aborting a rebase may mean an arbitrary number of "rebase --abort" calls to pop the stack). Your suggestion is probably a reasonable trick in the meantime. -Peff
