Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Why? Is it more like "--root implies --force"?

It doesn't currently exactly imply --force, but the effect is the
same. Also see my reply to Junio's email in this thread.

Maybe Chris has some thoughts on this?

Hi Martin and Johannes. Sorry for the slow follow-up here.

You're right that rebase --root without --onto always creates a brand new
root as a result of the implementation using a sentinel commit. Clearly this
is what's wanted with --interactive, but rebase --root with neither --onto
nor --interactive is a slightly odd combination for which I struggle to
imagine a natural use. Perhaps you're right that for consistency it should
be a no-op unless --force-rebase is given?

If we did this, this combination would be a no-op unconditionally as by
definition we're always descended from the root of our current commit.
However, given the not-very-useful behaviour, I suspect that rebase --root
is much more likely to be a mistyped version of rebase -i --root than rebase
--root --force-rebase. (Unless I'm missing a reasonable use for this?
History linearisation perhaps?)

Best wishes,

Chris.