Re: is rebase the same as merging every commit?

しらいしななこ  [off-list ref] writes:

Quoting Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

quoted

"David Jeske" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

If I understand it right (and that's a BIG if), it's the same as doing a merge
of C into G where every individual commit in the C-line is individually
committed into the new C' line.

...........-------------A---B---C
........../            /   /   /
........./        /---A'--B'--C'  topic
......../        /
....D---E---F---G - master


(1) Is the above model a valid explanation?

I would presume that the resulting trees A' in the second picture and in
the first picture would be the same, so are B' and C'.  But that is only
true when commits between A and C do not have any duplicate with the
development that happened between E and G.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong, Junio.
...
I agree that your explanation why A is not recorded as a parent of A' is
right for the philosophical reason (the purpose of rebasing to create A'
is so that you do not have to record them).  But from the point-of-view
of correctness of commit history, I think A must not be recorded as a
parent of A', either.

All correct.  Sorry about the confusion.