Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-10 Thread Ilya Kantor 
Hi,

If that's indeed true (as far as I could see that, still can be
mistaken), then as a git user, not developer, I'd stick to --no-ff,
because it's the more intuitive naming.

Just 5ยข.
---
Best Regards,
Ilya Kantor


On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Marc Branchaud  wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 03:46 PM, Ilya Kantor wrote:
>>
>> I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository:
>> http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL
>>
>> There's no difference in the resulf of:
>> git rebase --force-rebase 54a4
>> git rebase --no-ff 54a4
>>
>> (rebases all 3 commits of feature)
>>
>> Also, there's no difference in interactive mode:
>> git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4
>> git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4
>>
>> (picks all 3 commits of feature)
>>
>> Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?
>
>
> So now that "rebase -i" respects --force-rebase, the question is what to do
> about it:
>
> 1. Teach "rebase -i" to stop respecting --force-rebase (restoring the
> original intent when --no-ff was introduced)?
>
> 2. Deprecate --no-ff?
>
> 3. Deprecate --force-rebase?
>
> As a heavy rebase user, I find --no-ff more intuitive than --force-rebase.
> I'd be in favour of option 3, and keeping just --no-ff (with -f as a
> synonym).
>
> M.
>
>
>> ---
>> Best Regards,
>> Ilya Kantor
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:


 +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.

 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor  wrote:
>
>
> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
>
> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?



 I found


 https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
 from 2010-03-24
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I
>>> proposed
>>> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding
>>> a
>>> new option [2].  Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user
>>> interface
>>> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run.
>>>
>>> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff.  That
>>> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.
>>>
>>> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both
>>> options
>>> or deprecating one of them.
>>>
>>>  M.
>>>
>>> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4b9fd9c1.9060...@xiplink.com/t/
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcn...@xiplink.com/
>>> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
>>>
>>>
   Teach rebase the --no-ff option.

   For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.

   For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the
 commits
 in
   the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged
 commits.

   --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.
 Instead of
   "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate
 the
 branch
   with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least
 the
   committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert
 the
   reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.
 Added
 an
   addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and
 how to
   use --no-ff to handle it.

 which sounds as if there is?

 Stefan

>>>
>

Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-10 Thread Marc Branchaud 

On 2018-05-09 03:46 PM, Ilya Kantor wrote:

I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository:
http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL

There's no difference in the resulf of:
git rebase --force-rebase 54a4
git rebase --no-ff 54a4

(rebases all 3 commits of feature)

Also, there's no difference in interactive mode:
git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4
git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4

(picks all 3 commits of feature)

Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?


So now that "rebase -i" respects --force-rebase, the question is what to 
do about it:


1. Teach "rebase -i" to stop respecting --force-rebase (restoring the 
original intent when --no-ff was introduced)?


2. Deprecate --no-ff?

3. Deprecate --force-rebase?

As a heavy rebase user, I find --no-ff more intuitive than 
--force-rebase.  I'd be in favour of option 3, and keeping just --no-ff 
(with -f as a synonym).


M.



---
Best Regards,
Ilya Kantor


On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud  wrote:

On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:


+cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor  wrote:


Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
"Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."

But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?



I found

https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
from 2010-03-24



In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed
teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a
new option [2].  Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface
design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run.

At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff.  That
might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.

Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options
or deprecating one of them.

 M.

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4b9fd9c1.9060...@xiplink.com/t/
[2]
https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcn...@xiplink.com/
[3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/



  Teach rebase the --no-ff option.

  For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.

  For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits
in
  the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged
commits.

  --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.
Instead of
  "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the
branch
  with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
  committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
  reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added
an
  addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and
how to
  use --no-ff to handle it.

which sounds as if there is?

Stefan

Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-09 Thread Ilya Kantor 
I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository:
http://jmp.sh/E7TRjcL

There's no difference in the resulf of:
git rebase --force-rebase 54a4
git rebase --no-ff 54a4

(rebases all 3 commits of feature)

Also, there's no difference in interactive mode:
git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4
git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4

(picks all 3 commits of feature)

Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?

---
Best Regards,
Ilya Kantor


On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud  wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>
>> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor  wrote:
>>>
>>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
>>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
>>>
>>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?
>>
>>
>> I found
>>
>> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
>> from 2010-03-24
>
>
> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed
> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a
> new option [2].  Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface
> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run.
>
> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff.  That
> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.
>
> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options
> or deprecating one of them.
>
> M.
>
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4b9fd9c1.9060...@xiplink.com/t/
> [2]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcn...@xiplink.com/
> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
>
>
>>  Teach rebase the --no-ff option.
>>
>>  For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.
>>
>>  For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits
>> in
>>  the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged
>> commits.
>>
>>  --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.
>> Instead of
>>  "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the
>> branch
>>  with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
>>  committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
>>  reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added
>> an
>>  addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and
>> how to
>>  use --no-ff to handle it.
>>
>> which sounds as if there is?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>

Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-09 Thread Marc Branchaud 

On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:

+cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor  wrote:

Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
"Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."

But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?


I found
https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
from 2010-03-24


In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I 
proposed teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead 
of adding a new option [2].  Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better 
user interface design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be 
"forced" to run.


At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff.  That 
might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.


Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both 
options or deprecating one of them.


M.

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4b9fd9c1.9060...@xiplink.com/t/
[2] 
https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcn...@xiplink.com/

[3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/



 Teach rebase the --no-ff option.

 For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.

 For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits in
 the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged commits.

 --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.  Instead of
 "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the branch
 with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
 committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
 reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added an
 addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and how to
 use --no-ff to handle it.

which sounds as if there is?

Stefan

Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-09 Thread Stefan Beller 
+cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor  wrote:
> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
>
> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?

I found
https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
from 2010-03-24

Teach rebase the --no-ff option.

For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.

For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits in
the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged commits.

--no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.  Instead of
"reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the branch
with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added an
addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and how to
use --no-ff to handle it.

which sounds as if there is?

Stefan

Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

2018-05-09 Thread Ilya Kantor 
Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
"Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."

But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?

After doing some tests and looking in the source I couldn't find any
difference between those two at all.

Probably, there was a difference some time ago, but not now?

Then one of them can be safely deprecated.

---
Best Regards,
Ilya Kantor