"git rebase --keep-base <upstream>" tries to find the original base
of the topic being rebased and rebase on top of that same base,
which is useful when running the "git rebase -i" (and its limited
variant "git rebase -x").
The command also has learned to fast-forward in more cases where it
can instead of replaying to recreate identical commits.
* dl/rebase-i-keep-base:
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base
rebase tests: test linear branch topology
rebase: fast-forward --fork-point in more cases
rebase: fast-forward --onto in more cases
rebase: refactor can_fast_forward into goto tower
t3432: test for --no-ff's interaction with fast-forward
t3432: distinguish "noop-same" v.s. "work-same" in "same head" tests
t3432: test rebase fast-forward behavior
t3431: add rebase --fork-point tests
Start discouraging the use of "git filter-branch".
* en/filter-branch-deprecation:
t9902: use a non-deprecated command for testing
Recommend git-filter-repo instead of git-filter-branch
t6006: simplify, fix, and optimize empty message test
"git rebase --rebase-merges" learned to drive different merge
strategies and pass strategy specific options to them.
* js/rebase-r-strategy:
t3427: accelerate this test by using fast-export and fast-import
rebase -r: do not (re-)generate root commits with `--root` *and* `--onto`
t3418: test `rebase -r` with merge strategies
t/lib-rebase: prepare for testing `git rebase --rebase-merges`
rebase -r: support merge strategies other than `recursive`
t3427: fix another incorrect assumption
t3427: accommodate for the `rebase --merge` backend having been replaced
t3427: fix erroneous assumption
t3427: condense the unnecessarily repetitive test cases into three
t3427: move the `filter-branch` invocation into the `setup` case
t3427: simplify the `setup` test case significantly
t3427: add a clarifying comment
rebase: fold git-rebase--common into the -p backend
sequencer: the `am` and `rebase--interactive` scripts are gone
.gitignore: there is no longer a built-in `git-rebase--interactive`
t3400: stop referring to the scripted rebase
Drop unused git-rebase--am.sh
filter-branch suffers from a deluge of disguised dangers that disfigure
history rewrites (i.e. deviate from the deliberate changes). Many of
these problems are unobtrusive and can easily go undiscovered until the
new repository is in use. This can result in problems ranging from an
even messier history than what led folks to filter-branch in the first
place, to data loss or corruption. These issues cannot be backward
compatibly fixed, so add a warning to both filter-branch and its manpage
recommending that another tool (such as filter-repo) be used instead.
Also, update other manpages that referenced filter-branch. Several of
these needed updates even if we could continue recommending
filter-branch, either due to implying that something was unique to
filter-branch when it applied more generally to all history rewriting
tools (e.g. BFG, reposurgeon, fast-import, filter-repo), or because
something about filter-branch was used as an example despite other more
commonly known examples now existing. Reword these sections to fix
these issues and to avoid recommending filter-branch.
Finally, remove the section explaining BFG Repo Cleaner as an
alternative to filter-branch. I feel somewhat bad about this,
especially since I feel like I learned so much from BFG that I put to
good use in filter-repo (which is much more than I can say for
filter-branch), but keeping that section presented a few problems:
* In order to recommend that people quit using filter-branch, we need
to provide them a recomendation for something else to use that
can handle all the same types of rewrites. To my knowledge,
filter-repo is the only such tool. So it needs to be mentioned.
* I don't want to give conflicting recommendations to users
* If we recommend two tools, we shouldn't expect users to learn both
and pick which one to use; we should explain which problems one
can solve that the other can't or when one is much faster than
the other.
* BFG and filter-repo have similar performance
* All filtering types that BFG can do, filter-repo can also do. In
fact, filter-repo comes with a reimplementation of BFG named
bfg-ish which provides the same user-interface as BFG but with
several bugfixes and new features that are hard to implement in
BFG due to its technical underpinnings.
While I could still mention both tools, it seems like I would need to
provide some kind of comparison and I would ultimately just say that
filter-repo can do everything BFG can, so ultimately it seems that it
is just better to remove that section altogether.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they
wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they
would run something such as
git rebase -i --onto master... master
in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a
patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the
current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also
developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing
on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is.
In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a
topic branch without changing anything may run
git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master
Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is
such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut.
This allows us to rewrite the above as
git rebase -i --keep-base master
and
git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master
respectively.
Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and
fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and
interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause
rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing
set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'.
While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of
"merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We already support merge strategies in the sequencer, but only for
`pick` commands.
With this commit, we now also support them in `merge` commands. The
approach is simple: if any merge strategy option is specified, or if any
merge strategy other than `recursive` is specified, we simply spawn the
`git merge` command. Otherwise, we handle the merge in-process just as
before.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Two new commands "git switch" and "git restore" are introduced to
split "checking out a branch to work on advancing its history" and
"checking out paths out of the index and/or a tree-ish to work on
advancing the current history" out of the single "git checkout"
command.
* nd/switch-and-restore: (46 commits)
completion: disable dwim on "git switch -d"
switch: allow to switch in the middle of bisect
t2027: use test_must_be_empty
Declare both git-switch and git-restore experimental
help: move git-diff and git-reset to different groups
doc: promote "git restore"
user-manual.txt: prefer 'merge --abort' over 'reset --hard'
completion: support restore
t: add tests for restore
restore: support --patch
restore: replace --force with --ignore-unmerged
restore: default to --source=HEAD when only --staged is specified
restore: reject invalid combinations with --staged
restore: add --worktree and --staged
checkout: factor out worktree checkout code
restore: disable overlay mode by default
restore: make pathspec mandatory
restore: take tree-ish from --source option instead
checkout: split part of it to new command 'restore'
doc: promote "git switch"
...
Command mode options that the user can choose one among many are
listed like this in the documentation:
git am (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)
They are listed on a single line and in parenthesis, because they
are not optional.
But documentation pages for some commands deviate from this norm.
Fix the merge and rebase docs to match this style.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A bit more leftover clean-up to deprepcate "rebase -p".
* js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges:
rebase docs: recommend `-r` over `-p`
docs: say that `--rebase=preserve` is deprecated
tests: mark a couple more test cases as requiring `rebase -p`
The `--preserve-merges` option is now deprecated in favor of
`--rebase-merges`; Let's stop recommending the former.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git rebase --rebase-merges" replaces its old "--preserve-merges"
option; the latter is now marked as deprecated.
* js/rebase-deprecate-preserve-merges:
rebase: deprecate --preserve-merges
The new command "git switch" is added to avoid the confusion of
one-command-do-all "git checkout" for new users. They are also helpful
to avoid ambiguation context.
For these reasons, promote it everywhere possible. This includes
documentation, suggestions/advice from other commands...
The "Checking out files" progress line in unpack-trees.c is also updated
to "Updating files" to be neutral to both git-checkout and git-switch.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This option was missing from the man pages of these commands.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have something much better now: --rebase-merges (which is a
complete re-design --preserve-merges, with a lot of issues fixed such as
the inability to reorder commits with --preserve-merges).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Change it to "linkgit" so that the reference is properly rendered.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git rebase --merge" as been reimplemented by reusing the internal
machinery used for "git rebase -i".
* en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer:
git-rebase.txt: update to reflect merge now implemented on sequencer
Since commit 8fe9c3f21d (Merge branch 'en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer',
2019-02-06), --merge now uses the interactive backend (and matches its
behavior) so there is no separate merge backend anymore. Fix an
oversight in the docs that should have been updated with the previous
change.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --autosquash option is implied by the earlier --[no-]autosquash
entry in the list.
Signed-off-by: Emilio Cobos Álvarez <emilio@crisal.io>
Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For "rebase -i --reschedule-failed-exec", we do not want the "-y"
shortcut after all.
* js/rebase-i-redo-exec-fix:
Revert "rebase: introduce a shortcut for --reschedule-failed-exec"
"git rebase --merge" as been reimplemented by reusing the internal
machinery used for "git rebase -i".
* en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer:
rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery
rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it
git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if
git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery
am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite
t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently
rebase: fix incompatible options error message
rebase: make builtin and legacy script error messages the same
This patch was contributed only as a tentative "we could introduce a
convenient short option if we do not want to change the default behavior
in the long run" patch, opening the discussion whether other people
agree with deprecating the current behavior in favor of the rescheduling
behavior.
But the consensus on the Git mailing list was that it would make sense
to show a warning in the near future, and flip the default
rebase.rescheduleFailedExec to reschedule failed `exec` commands by
default. See e.g.
<CAGZ79kZL5CRqCDRb6B-EedUm8Z_i4JuSF2=UtwwdRXMitrrOBw@mail.gmail.com>
So let's back out that patch that added the `-y` short option that we
agreed was not necessary or desirable.
This reverts commit 81ef8ee75d.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git rebase -i" learned to re-execute a command given with 'exec'
to run after it failed the last time.
* js/rebase-i-redo-exec:
rebase: introduce a shortcut for --reschedule-failed-exec
rebase: add a config option to default to --reschedule-failed-exec
rebase: introduce --reschedule-failed-exec
As part of an ongoing effort to make rebase have more uniform behavior,
modify the merge backend to behave like the interactive one, by
re-implementing it on top of the latter.
Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the
recursive merge machinery by default and can accept special merge
strategies and/or special strategy options. As such, there really is
not any need for having both git-rebase--merge and
git-rebase--interactive anymore. Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and
instead implement it in builtin/rebase.c.
This results in a few deliberate but small user-visible changes:
* The progress output is modified (see t3406 and t3420 for examples)
* A few known test failures are now fixed (see t3421)
* bash-prompt during a rebase --merge is now REBASE-i instead of
REBASE-m. Reason: The prompt is a reflection of the backend in use;
this allows users to report an issue to the git mailing list with
the appropriate backend information, and allows advanced users to
know where to search for relevant control files. (see t9903)
testcase modification notes:
t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
while running; adjust a test to match the new expectation
t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
tests expected different output for each type. Now we expect
--merge and --interactive to have the same output.
t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge! Wahoo!
t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
now REBASE-i.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is a bit cumbersome to write out the `--reschedule-failed-exec`
option before `-x <cmd>` all the time; let's introduce a convenient
option to do both at the same time: `-y <cmd>`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A common use case for the `--exec` option is to verify that each commit
in a topic branch compiles cleanly, via `git rebase -x make <base>`.
However, when an `exec` in such a rebase fails, it is not re-scheduled,
which in this instance is not particularly helpful.
Let's offer a flag to reschedule failed `exec` commands.
Based on an idea by Paul Morelle.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Delete a misplaced word introduced by caafecfcf1 (rebase
--rebase-merges: adjust man page for octopus support, 2018-03-09).
Signed-off-by: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In commit 6aba117d5c ("am: avoid directory rename detection when
calling recursive merge machinery", 2018-08-29), the git-rebase manpage
probably should have also been updated to note the stronger
incompatibility between git-am and directory rename detection. Update
it now.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The text body of section Behavioral Differences is typeset as code,
but should be regular text. Remove the indentation to achieve that.
While here, prettify the language:
- use "the x backend" instead of "x-based rebase";
- use present tense instead of future tense;
and use subsections instead of a list.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Split the overly large Documentation/config.txt file into million
little pieces. This potentially allows each individual piece
included into the manual page of the command it affects more easily.
* nd/config-split: (81 commits)
config.txt: remove config/dummy.txt
config.txt: move worktree.* to a separate file
config.txt: move web.* to a separate file
config.txt: move versionsort.* to a separate file
config.txt: move user.* to a separate file
config.txt: move url.* to a separate file
config.txt: move uploadpack.* to a separate file
config.txt: move uploadarchive.* to a separate file
config.txt: move transfer.* to a separate file
config.txt: move tag.* to a separate file
config.txt: move submodule.* to a separate file
config.txt: move stash.* to a separate file
config.txt: move status.* to a separate file
config.txt: move splitIndex.* to a separate file
config.txt: move showBranch.* to a separate file
config.txt: move sequencer.* to a separate file
config.txt: move sendemail-config.txt to config/
config.txt: move reset.* to a separate file
config.txt: move rerere.* to a separate file
config.txt: move repack.* to a separate file
...
"git rebase -i" learned a new insn, 'break', that the user can
insert in the to-do list. Upon hitting it, the command returns
control back to the user.
* js/rebase-i-break:
rebase -i: introduce the 'break' command
rebase -i: clarify what happens on a failed `exec`
The 'edit' command can be used to cherry-pick a commit and then
immediately drop out of the interactive rebase, with exit code 0, to let
the user amend the commit, or test it, or look around.
Sometimes this functionality would come in handy *without*
cherry-picking a commit, e.g. to interrupt the interactive rebase even
before cherry-picking a commit, or immediately after an 'exec' or a
'merge'.
This commit introduces that functionality, as the spanking new 'break'
command.
Suggested-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We had not documented previously what happens when an `exec` command in
an interactive rebase fails. Now we do.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git rebase --rebase-merges" mode now handles octopus merges as
well.
* js/rebase-merge-octopus:
rebase --rebase-merges: adjust man page for octopus support
rebase --rebase-merges: add support for octopus merges
merge: allow reading the merge commit message from a file
"git rebase" behaved slightly differently depending on which one of
the three backends gets used; this has been documented and an
effort to make them more uniform has begun.
* en/rebase-consistency:
git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default
t3401: add directory rename testcases for rebase and am
git-rebase.txt: document behavioral differences between modes
directory-rename-detection.txt: technical docs on abilities and limitations
git-rebase.txt: address confusion between --no-ff vs --force-rebase
git-rebase: error out when incompatible options passed
t3422: new testcases for checking when incompatible options passed
git-rebase.sh: update help messages a bit
git-rebase.txt: document incompatible options
Now that we support octopus merges in the `--rebase-merges` mode,
we should give users who actually read the manuals a chance to know
about this fact.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
rebase backends currently behave differently with empty commit messages,
largely as a side-effect of the different underlying commands on which
they are based. am-based rebases apply commits with an empty commit
message without stopping or requiring the user to specify an extra flag.
(It is interesting to note that am-based rebases are the default rebase
type, and no one has ever requested a --no-allow-empty-message flag to
change this behavior.) merge-based and interactive-based rebases (which
are ultimately based on git-commit), will currently halt on any such
commits and require the user to manually specify what to do with the
commit and continue.
One possible rationale for the difference in behavior is that the purpose
of an "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an existing history, while
an "interactive" rebase is one whose purpose is to polish a series before
making it publishable. Thus, stopping and asking for confirmation for a
possible problem is more appropriate in the latter case. However, there
are two problems with this rationale:
1) merge-based rebases are also non-interactive and there are multiple
types of rebases that use the interactive machinery but are not
explicitly interactive (e.g. when either --rebase-merges or
--keep-empty are specified without --interactive). These rebases are
also used solely to transplant an existing history, and thus also
should default to --allow-empty-message.
2) this rationale only says that the user is more accepting of stopping
in the case of an explicitly interactive rebase, not that stopping
for this particular reason actually makes sense. Exploring whether
it makes sense, requires backing up and analyzing the underlying
commands...
If git-commit did not error out on empty commits by default, accidental
creation of commits with empty messages would be a very common occurrence
(this check has caught me many times). Further, nearly all such empty
commit messages would be considered an accidental error (as evidenced by a
huge amount of documentation across version control systems and in various
blog posts explaining how important commit messages are). A simple check
for what would otherwise be a common error thus made a lot of sense, and
git-commit gained an --allow-empty-message flag for special case
overrides. This has made commits with empty messages very rare.
There are two sources for commits with empty messages for rebase (and
cherry-pick): (a) commits created in git where the user previously
specified --allow-empty-message to git-commit, and (b) commits imported
into git from other version control systems. In case (a), the user has
already explicitly specified that there is something special about this
commit that makes them not want to specify a commit message; forcing them
to re-specify with every cherry-pick or rebase seems more likely to be
infuriating than helpful. In case (b), the commit is highly unlikely to
have been authored by the person who has imported the history and is doing
the rebase or cherry-pick, and thus the user is unlikely to be the
appropriate person to write a commit message for it. Stopping and
expecting the user to modify the commit before proceeding thus seems
counter-productive.
Further, note that while empty commit messages was a common error case for
git-commit to deal with, it is a rare case for rebase (or cherry-pick).
The fact that it is rare raises the question of why it would be worth
checking and stopping on this particular condition and not others. For
example, why doesn't an interactive rebase automatically stop if the
commit message's first line is 2000 columns long, or is missing a blank
line after the first line, or has every line indented with five spaces, or
any number of other myriad problems?
Finally, note that if a user doing an interactive rebase does have the
necessary knowledge to add a message for any such commit and wants to do
so, it is rather simple for them to change the appropriate line from
'pick' to 'reword'. The fact that the subject is empty in the todo list
that the user edits should even serve as a way to notify them.
As far as I can tell, the fact that merge-based and interactive-based
rebases stop on commits with empty commit messages is solely a by-product
of having been based on git-commit. It went without notice for a long
time precisely because such cases are rare. The rareness of this
situation made it difficult to reason about, so when folks did eventually
notice this behavior, they assumed it was there for a good reason and just
added an --allow-empty-message flag. In my opinion, stopping on such
messages not desirable in any of these cases, even the (explicitly)
interactive case.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are a variety of aspects that are common to all rebases regardless
of which backend is in use; however, the behavior for these different
aspects varies in ways that could surprise users. (In fact, it's not
clear -- to me at least -- that these differences were even desirable or
intentional.) Document these differences.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
rebase was taught the --force-rebase option in commit b2f82e05de ("Teach
rebase to rebase even if upstream is up to date", 2009-02-13). This flag
worked for the am and merge backends, but wasn't a valid option for the
interactive backend.
rebase was taught the --no-ff option for interactive rebases in commit
b499549401 ("Teach rebase the --no-ff option.", 2010-03-24), to do the
exact same thing as --force-rebase does for non-interactive rebases. This
commit explicitly documented the fact that --force-rebase was incompatible
with --interactive, though it made --no-ff a synonym for --force-rebase
for non-interactive rebases. The choice of a new option was based on the
fact that "force rebase" didn't sound like an appropriate term for the
interactive machinery.
In commit 6bb4e485cf ("rebase: align variable names", 2011-02-06), the
separate parsing of command line options in the different rebase scripts
was removed, and whether on accident or because the author noticed that
these options did the same thing, the options became synonyms and both
were accepted by all three rebase types.
In commit 2d26d533a0 ("Documentation/git-rebase.txt: -f forces a rebase
that would otherwise be a no-op", 2014-08-12), which reworded the
description of the --force-rebase option, the (no-longer correct) sentence
stating that --force-rebase was incompatible with --interactive was
finally removed.
Finally, as explained at
https://public-inbox.org/git/98279912-0f52-969d-44a6-22242039387f@xiplink.com
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.
We have accepted both --no-ff and --force-rebase as full synonyms for all
three rebase types for over seven years. Documenting them differently
and in ways that suggest they might not be quite synonyms simply leads to
confusion. Adjust the documentation to match reality.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Last sections are squashed into non-formatted block after adding
"REBASING MERGES".
To reproduce the error see bottom of page:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Parfinenko <vparfinenko@excelsior-usa.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git rebase has many options that only work with one of its three backends.
It also has a few other pairs of incompatible options. Document these.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
