On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:03:29PM -0700, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Keeping [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Commit 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream} if no upstream specified,
2011-02-09) says:
Make it default to 'git rebase @{upstream}'. That is also what
'git pull [--rebase]' defaults to, so it only makes sense that
'git rebase' defaults to the same thing.
but that isn't actually the case. Since commit d44e712 (pull: support
rebased upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19), pull has actually
chosen the most recent reflog entry which is an ancestor of the current
branch if it can find one.
It is exactly this inconsistency between "git rebase" and "git pull
--rebase" that confused me enough to make me send my first email to
this list almost 4 years ago [1], so thanks for working on this! I
finished that thread with:
Would it make sense to teach "git rebase" the same tricks as "git
pull --rebase"?
Then it took me a year before I sent a patch not unlike this one [2].
To summarize, the patch did not get accepted then because it makes
rebase a little slower (or a lot slower in some cases). "git pull
--rebase" is of course at least as slow in the same cases, but because
it often involves connecting to a remote host, people would probably
blame the connection rather than git itself even in those rare (?)
cases.
I think
git merge-base HEAD $(git rev-list -g "$upstream_name")
is roughly correct and hopefully fast enough. That can lead to too
long a command line, so I was planning on teaching merge-base a
--stdin option, but never got around to it.
I'm not sure we should worry about the additional overhead here. In the
common case, we should hit a common ancestor within the first couple of
reflog entries; and in the case that will be slow, it's likely that
there are a lot of differences between the branches so the cherry
comparison phase will take a while anyway.