Re: Difference between 'git rebase' and 'git rebase -m'

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy venit, vidit, dixit 17.11.2010 12:43:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Joshua Jensen wrote:

quoted

I'm curious as to why 'git rebase -m' isn't the default and what the
real difference is between 'git rebase' and 'git rebase -m'.

git rebase is faster. :)

Perhaps a config option to let people to default to -m. Or perhaps
they can just make an alias.

By the way, can we make rebase even faster? Rebasing ~20 patches or
more seems slow to me. I don't know much how patching works though.

git sequencer...

Sequencer is definitely an improvement. But does it improve
performance? I don't know rebase internals but I think that it needs
to update worktree/index for every commit, which might slow things
down a bit.
-- 
Duy