00ea64ed7a
Mentored-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Mentored-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
1295 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
1295 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
git-rebase(1)
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
NAME
|
|
----
|
|
git-rebase - Reapply commits on top of another base tip
|
|
|
|
SYNOPSIS
|
|
--------
|
|
[verse]
|
|
'git rebase' [-i | --interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>]
|
|
[--onto <newbase> | --keep-base] [<upstream> [<branch>]]
|
|
'git rebase' [-i | --interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>] [--onto <newbase>]
|
|
--root [<branch>]
|
|
'git rebase' (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit | --edit-todo | --show-current-patch)
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION
|
|
-----------
|
|
If <branch> is specified, 'git rebase' will perform an automatic
|
|
`git switch <branch>` before doing anything else. Otherwise
|
|
it remains on the current branch.
|
|
|
|
If <upstream> is not specified, the upstream configured in
|
|
branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge options will be used (see
|
|
linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is
|
|
assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current
|
|
branch does not have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort.
|
|
|
|
All changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not
|
|
in <upstream> are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set
|
|
of commits that would be shown by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`; or by
|
|
`git log 'fork_point'..HEAD`, if `--fork-point` is active (see the
|
|
description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the
|
|
`--root` option is specified.
|
|
|
|
The current branch is reset to <upstream>, or <newbase> if the
|
|
--onto option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as
|
|
`git reset --hard <upstream>` (or <newbase>). ORIG_HEAD is set
|
|
to point at the tip of the branch before the reset.
|
|
|
|
The commits that were previously saved into the temporary area are
|
|
then reapplied to the current branch, one by one, in order. Note that
|
|
any commits in HEAD which introduce the same textual changes as a commit
|
|
in HEAD..<upstream> are omitted (i.e., a patch already accepted upstream
|
|
with a different commit message or timestamp will be skipped).
|
|
|
|
It is possible that a merge failure will prevent this process from being
|
|
completely automatic. You will have to resolve any such merge failure
|
|
and run `git rebase --continue`. Another option is to bypass the commit
|
|
that caused the merge failure with `git rebase --skip`. To check out the
|
|
original <branch> and remove the .git/rebase-apply working files, use the
|
|
command `git rebase --abort` instead.
|
|
|
|
Assume the following history exists and the current branch is "topic":
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
A---B---C topic
|
|
/
|
|
D---E---F---G master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
From this point, the result of either of the following commands:
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase master
|
|
git rebase master topic
|
|
|
|
would be:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
A'--B'--C' topic
|
|
/
|
|
D---E---F---G master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
*NOTE:* The latter form is just a short-hand of `git checkout topic`
|
|
followed by `git rebase master`. When rebase exits `topic` will
|
|
remain the checked-out branch.
|
|
|
|
If the upstream branch already contains a change you have made (e.g.,
|
|
because you mailed a patch which was applied upstream), then that commit
|
|
will be skipped. For example, running `git rebase master` on the
|
|
following history (in which `A'` and `A` introduce the same set of changes,
|
|
but have different committer information):
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
A---B---C topic
|
|
/
|
|
D---E---A'---F master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
will result in:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
B'---C' topic
|
|
/
|
|
D---E---A'---F master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
Here is how you would transplant a topic branch based on one
|
|
branch to another, to pretend that you forked the topic branch
|
|
from the latter branch, using `rebase --onto`.
|
|
|
|
First let's assume your 'topic' is based on branch 'next'.
|
|
For example, a feature developed in 'topic' depends on some
|
|
functionality which is found in 'next'.
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
\
|
|
o---o---o---o---o next
|
|
\
|
|
o---o---o topic
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
We want to make 'topic' forked from branch 'master'; for example,
|
|
because the functionality on which 'topic' depends was merged into the
|
|
more stable 'master' branch. We want our tree to look like this:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
| \
|
|
| o'--o'--o' topic
|
|
\
|
|
o---o---o---o---o next
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
We can get this using the following command:
|
|
|
|
git rebase --onto master next topic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another example of --onto option is to rebase part of a
|
|
branch. If we have the following situation:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
H---I---J topicB
|
|
/
|
|
E---F---G topicA
|
|
/
|
|
A---B---C---D master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
then the command
|
|
|
|
git rebase --onto master topicA topicB
|
|
|
|
would result in:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
H'--I'--J' topicB
|
|
/
|
|
| E---F---G topicA
|
|
|/
|
|
A---B---C---D master
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
This is useful when topicB does not depend on topicA.
|
|
|
|
A range of commits could also be removed with rebase. If we have
|
|
the following situation:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
E---F---G---H---I---J topicA
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
then the command
|
|
|
|
git rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA
|
|
|
|
would result in the removal of commits F and G:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
E---H'---I'---J' topicA
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
This is useful if F and G were flawed in some way, or should not be
|
|
part of topicA. Note that the argument to --onto and the <upstream>
|
|
parameter can be any valid commit-ish.
|
|
|
|
In case of conflict, 'git rebase' will stop at the first problematic commit
|
|
and leave conflict markers in the tree. You can use 'git diff' to locate
|
|
the markers (<<<<<<) and make edits to resolve the conflict. For each
|
|
file you edit, you need to tell Git that the conflict has been resolved,
|
|
typically this would be done with
|
|
|
|
|
|
git add <filename>
|
|
|
|
|
|
After resolving the conflict manually and updating the index with the
|
|
desired resolution, you can continue the rebasing process with
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase --continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatively, you can undo the 'git rebase' with
|
|
|
|
|
|
git rebase --abort
|
|
|
|
CONFIGURATION
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
include::config/rebase.txt[]
|
|
include::config/sequencer.txt[]
|
|
|
|
OPTIONS
|
|
-------
|
|
--onto <newbase>::
|
|
Starting point at which to create the new commits. If the
|
|
--onto option is not specified, the starting point is
|
|
<upstream>. May be any valid commit, and not just an
|
|
existing branch name.
|
|
+
|
|
As a special case, you may use "A\...B" as a shortcut for the
|
|
merge base of A and B if there is exactly one merge base. You can
|
|
leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD.
|
|
|
|
--keep-base::
|
|
Set the starting point at which to create the new commits to the
|
|
merge base of <upstream> <branch>. Running
|
|
'git rebase --keep-base <upstream> <branch>' is equivalent to
|
|
running 'git rebase --onto <upstream>... <upstream>'.
|
|
+
|
|
This option is useful in the case where one is developing a feature on
|
|
top of an upstream branch. While the feature is being worked on, the
|
|
upstream branch may advance and it may not be the best idea to keep
|
|
rebasing on top of the upstream but to keep the base commit as-is.
|
|
+
|
|
Although both this option and --fork-point find the merge base between
|
|
<upstream> and <branch>, this option uses the merge base as the _starting
|
|
point_ on which new commits will be created, whereas --fork-point uses
|
|
the merge base to determine the _set of commits_ which will be rebased.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
<upstream>::
|
|
Upstream branch to compare against. May be any valid commit,
|
|
not just an existing branch name. Defaults to the configured
|
|
upstream for the current branch.
|
|
|
|
<branch>::
|
|
Working branch; defaults to HEAD.
|
|
|
|
--continue::
|
|
Restart the rebasing process after having resolved a merge conflict.
|
|
|
|
--abort::
|
|
Abort the rebase operation and reset HEAD to the original
|
|
branch. If <branch> was provided when the rebase operation was
|
|
started, then HEAD will be reset to <branch>. Otherwise HEAD
|
|
will be reset to where it was when the rebase operation was
|
|
started.
|
|
|
|
--quit::
|
|
Abort the rebase operation but HEAD is not reset back to the
|
|
original branch. The index and working tree are also left
|
|
unchanged as a result. If a temporary stash entry was created
|
|
using --autostash, it will be saved to the stash list.
|
|
|
|
--apply::
|
|
Use applying strategies to rebase (calling `git-am`
|
|
internally). This option may become a no-op in the future
|
|
once the merge backend handles everything the apply one does.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--empty={drop,keep,ask}::
|
|
How to handle commits that are not empty to start and are not
|
|
clean cherry-picks of any upstream commit, but which become
|
|
empty after rebasing (because they contain a subset of already
|
|
upstream changes). With drop (the default), commits that
|
|
become empty are dropped. With keep, such commits are kept.
|
|
With ask (implied by --interactive), the rebase will halt when
|
|
an empty commit is applied allowing you to choose whether to
|
|
drop it, edit files more, or just commit the empty changes.
|
|
Other options, like --exec, will use the default of drop unless
|
|
-i/--interactive is explicitly specified.
|
|
+
|
|
Note that commits which start empty are kept (unless --no-keep-empty
|
|
is specified), and commits which are clean cherry-picks (as determined
|
|
by `git log --cherry-mark ...`) are detected and dropped as a
|
|
preliminary step (unless --reapply-cherry-picks is passed).
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--no-keep-empty::
|
|
--keep-empty::
|
|
Do not keep commits that start empty before the rebase
|
|
(i.e. that do not change anything from its parent) in the
|
|
result. The default is to keep commits which start empty,
|
|
since creating such commits requires passing the --allow-empty
|
|
override flag to `git commit`, signifying that a user is very
|
|
intentionally creating such a commit and thus wants to keep
|
|
it.
|
|
+
|
|
Usage of this flag will probably be rare, since you can get rid of
|
|
commits that start empty by just firing up an interactive rebase and
|
|
removing the lines corresponding to the commits you don't want. This
|
|
flag exists as a convenient shortcut, such as for cases where external
|
|
tools generate many empty commits and you want them all removed.
|
|
+
|
|
For commits which do not start empty but become empty after rebasing,
|
|
see the --empty flag.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--reapply-cherry-picks::
|
|
--no-reapply-cherry-picks::
|
|
Reapply all clean cherry-picks of any upstream commit instead
|
|
of preemptively dropping them. (If these commits then become
|
|
empty after rebasing, because they contain a subset of already
|
|
upstream changes, the behavior towards them is controlled by
|
|
the `--empty` flag.)
|
|
+
|
|
By default (or if `--no-reapply-cherry-picks` is given), these commits
|
|
will be automatically dropped. Because this necessitates reading all
|
|
upstream commits, this can be expensive in repos with a large number
|
|
of upstream commits that need to be read.
|
|
+
|
|
`--reapply-cherry-picks` allows rebase to forgo reading all upstream
|
|
commits, potentially improving performance.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--allow-empty-message::
|
|
No-op. Rebasing commits with an empty message used to fail
|
|
and this option would override that behavior, allowing commits
|
|
with empty messages to be rebased. Now commits with an empty
|
|
message do not cause rebasing to halt.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--skip::
|
|
Restart the rebasing process by skipping the current patch.
|
|
|
|
--edit-todo::
|
|
Edit the todo list during an interactive rebase.
|
|
|
|
--show-current-patch::
|
|
Show the current patch in an interactive rebase or when rebase
|
|
is stopped because of conflicts. This is the equivalent of
|
|
`git show REBASE_HEAD`.
|
|
|
|
-m::
|
|
--merge::
|
|
Use merging strategies to rebase. When the recursive (default) merge
|
|
strategy is used, this allows rebase to be aware of renames on the
|
|
upstream side. This is the default.
|
|
+
|
|
Note that a rebase merge works by replaying each commit from the working
|
|
branch on top of the <upstream> branch. Because of this, when a merge
|
|
conflict happens, the side reported as 'ours' is the so-far rebased
|
|
series, starting with <upstream>, and 'theirs' is the working branch. In
|
|
other words, the sides are swapped.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-s <strategy>::
|
|
--strategy=<strategy>::
|
|
Use the given merge strategy.
|
|
If there is no `-s` option 'git merge-recursive' is used
|
|
instead. This implies --merge.
|
|
+
|
|
Because 'git rebase' replays each commit from the working branch
|
|
on top of the <upstream> branch using the given strategy, using
|
|
the 'ours' strategy simply empties all patches from the <branch>,
|
|
which makes little sense.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-X <strategy-option>::
|
|
--strategy-option=<strategy-option>::
|
|
Pass the <strategy-option> through to the merge strategy.
|
|
This implies `--merge` and, if no strategy has been
|
|
specified, `-s recursive`. Note the reversal of 'ours' and
|
|
'theirs' as noted above for the `-m` option.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--rerere-autoupdate::
|
|
--no-rerere-autoupdate::
|
|
Allow the rerere mechanism to update the index with the
|
|
result of auto-conflict resolution if possible.
|
|
|
|
-S[<keyid>]::
|
|
--gpg-sign[=<keyid>]::
|
|
--no-gpg-sign::
|
|
GPG-sign commits. The `keyid` argument is optional and
|
|
defaults to the committer identity; if specified, it must be
|
|
stuck to the option without a space. `--no-gpg-sign` is useful to
|
|
countermand both `commit.gpgSign` configuration variable, and
|
|
earlier `--gpg-sign`.
|
|
|
|
-q::
|
|
--quiet::
|
|
Be quiet. Implies --no-stat.
|
|
|
|
-v::
|
|
--verbose::
|
|
Be verbose. Implies --stat.
|
|
|
|
--stat::
|
|
Show a diffstat of what changed upstream since the last rebase. The
|
|
diffstat is also controlled by the configuration option rebase.stat.
|
|
|
|
-n::
|
|
--no-stat::
|
|
Do not show a diffstat as part of the rebase process.
|
|
|
|
--no-verify::
|
|
This option bypasses the pre-rebase hook. See also linkgit:githooks[5].
|
|
|
|
--verify::
|
|
Allows the pre-rebase hook to run, which is the default. This option can
|
|
be used to override --no-verify. See also linkgit:githooks[5].
|
|
|
|
-C<n>::
|
|
Ensure at least <n> lines of surrounding context match before
|
|
and after each change. When fewer lines of surrounding
|
|
context exist they all must match. By default no context is
|
|
ever ignored. Implies --apply.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--no-ff::
|
|
--force-rebase::
|
|
-f::
|
|
Individually replay all rebased commits instead of fast-forwarding
|
|
over the unchanged ones. This ensures that the entire history of
|
|
the rebased branch is composed of new commits.
|
|
+
|
|
You may find this helpful after reverting a topic branch merge, as this option
|
|
recreates the topic branch with fresh commits so it can be remerged
|
|
successfully without needing to "revert the reversion" (see the
|
|
link:howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.html[revert-a-faulty-merge How-To] for
|
|
details).
|
|
|
|
--fork-point::
|
|
--no-fork-point::
|
|
Use reflog to find a better common ancestor between <upstream>
|
|
and <branch> when calculating which commits have been
|
|
introduced by <branch>.
|
|
+
|
|
When --fork-point is active, 'fork_point' will be used instead of
|
|
<upstream> to calculate the set of commits to rebase, where
|
|
'fork_point' is the result of `git merge-base --fork-point <upstream>
|
|
<branch>` command (see linkgit:git-merge-base[1]). If 'fork_point'
|
|
ends up being empty, the <upstream> will be used as a fallback.
|
|
+
|
|
If <upstream> is given on the command line, then the default is
|
|
`--no-fork-point`, otherwise the default is `--fork-point`.
|
|
+
|
|
If your branch was based on <upstream> but <upstream> was rewound and
|
|
your branch contains commits which were dropped, this option can be used
|
|
with `--keep-base` in order to drop those commits from your branch.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--ignore-whitespace::
|
|
Ignore whitespace differences when trying to reconcile
|
|
differences. Currently, each backend implements an approximation of
|
|
this behavior:
|
|
+
|
|
apply backend: When applying a patch, ignore changes in whitespace in
|
|
context lines. Unfortunately, this means that if the "old" lines being
|
|
replaced by the patch differ only in whitespace from the existing
|
|
file, you will get a merge conflict instead of a successful patch
|
|
application.
|
|
+
|
|
merge backend: Treat lines with only whitespace changes as unchanged
|
|
when merging. Unfortunately, this means that any patch hunks that were
|
|
intended to modify whitespace and nothing else will be dropped, even
|
|
if the other side had no changes that conflicted.
|
|
|
|
--whitespace=<option>::
|
|
This flag is passed to the 'git apply' program
|
|
(see linkgit:git-apply[1]) that applies the patch.
|
|
Implies --apply.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--committer-date-is-author-date::
|
|
Instead of using the current time as the committer date, use
|
|
the author date of the commit being rebased as the committer
|
|
date. This option implies `--force-rebase`.
|
|
|
|
--ignore-date::
|
|
--reset-author-date::
|
|
Instead of using the author date of the original commit, use
|
|
the current time as the author date of the rebased commit. This
|
|
option implies `--force-rebase`.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--signoff::
|
|
Add a `Signed-off-by` trailer to all the rebased commits. Note
|
|
that if `--interactive` is given then only commits marked to be
|
|
picked, edited or reworded will have the trailer added.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-i::
|
|
--interactive::
|
|
Make a list of the commits which are about to be rebased. Let the
|
|
user edit that list before rebasing. This mode can also be used to
|
|
split commits (see SPLITTING COMMITS below).
|
|
+
|
|
The commit list format can be changed by setting the configuration option
|
|
rebase.instructionFormat. A customized instruction format will automatically
|
|
have the long commit hash prepended to the format.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-r::
|
|
--rebase-merges[=(rebase-cousins|no-rebase-cousins)]::
|
|
By default, a rebase will simply drop merge commits from the todo
|
|
list, and put the rebased commits into a single, linear branch.
|
|
With `--rebase-merges`, the rebase will instead try to preserve
|
|
the branching structure within the commits that are to be rebased,
|
|
by recreating the merge commits. Any resolved merge conflicts or
|
|
manual amendments in these merge commits will have to be
|
|
resolved/re-applied manually.
|
|
+
|
|
By default, or when `no-rebase-cousins` was specified, commits which do not
|
|
have `<upstream>` as direct ancestor will keep their original branch point,
|
|
i.e. commits that would be excluded by linkgit:git-log[1]'s
|
|
`--ancestry-path` option will keep their original ancestry by default. If
|
|
the `rebase-cousins` mode is turned on, such commits are instead rebased
|
|
onto `<upstream>` (or `<onto>`, if specified).
|
|
+
|
|
The `--rebase-merges` mode is similar in spirit to the deprecated
|
|
`--preserve-merges` but works with interactive rebases,
|
|
where commits can be reordered, inserted and dropped at will.
|
|
+
|
|
It is currently only possible to recreate the merge commits using the
|
|
`recursive` merge strategy; Different merge strategies can be used only via
|
|
explicit `exec git merge -s <strategy> [...]` commands.
|
|
+
|
|
See also REBASING MERGES and INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-p::
|
|
--preserve-merges::
|
|
[DEPRECATED: use `--rebase-merges` instead] Recreate merge commits
|
|
instead of flattening the history by replaying commits a merge commit
|
|
introduces. Merge conflict resolutions or manual amendments to merge
|
|
commits are not preserved.
|
|
+
|
|
This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but combining it
|
|
with the `--interactive` option explicitly is generally not a good
|
|
idea unless you know what you are doing (see BUGS below).
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
-x <cmd>::
|
|
--exec <cmd>::
|
|
Append "exec <cmd>" after each line creating a commit in the
|
|
final history. <cmd> will be interpreted as one or more shell
|
|
commands. Any command that fails will interrupt the rebase,
|
|
with exit code 1.
|
|
+
|
|
You may execute several commands by either using one instance of `--exec`
|
|
with several commands:
|
|
+
|
|
git rebase -i --exec "cmd1 && cmd2 && ..."
|
|
+
|
|
or by giving more than one `--exec`:
|
|
+
|
|
git rebase -i --exec "cmd1" --exec "cmd2" --exec ...
|
|
+
|
|
If `--autosquash` is used, "exec" lines will not be appended for
|
|
the intermediate commits, and will only appear at the end of each
|
|
squash/fixup series.
|
|
+
|
|
This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but it can be run
|
|
without an explicit `--interactive`.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--root::
|
|
Rebase all commits reachable from <branch>, instead of
|
|
limiting them with an <upstream>. This allows you to rebase
|
|
the root commit(s) on a branch. When used with --onto, it
|
|
will skip changes already contained in <newbase> (instead of
|
|
<upstream>) whereas without --onto it will operate on every change.
|
|
When used together with both --onto and --preserve-merges,
|
|
'all' root commits will be rewritten to have <newbase> as parent
|
|
instead.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--autosquash::
|
|
--no-autosquash::
|
|
When the commit log message begins with "squash! ..." or "fixup! ..."
|
|
or "amend! ...", and there is already a commit in the todo list that
|
|
matches the same `...`, automatically modify the todo list of
|
|
`rebase -i`, so that the commit marked for squashing comes right after
|
|
the commit to be modified, and change the action of the moved commit
|
|
from `pick` to `squash` or `fixup` or `fixup -C` respectively. A commit
|
|
matches the `...` if the commit subject matches, or if the `...` refers
|
|
to the commit's hash. As a fall-back, partial matches of the commit
|
|
subject work, too. The recommended way to create fixup/amend/squash
|
|
commits is by using the `--fixup`, `--fixup=amend:` or `--fixup=reword:`
|
|
and `--squash` options respectively of linkgit:git-commit[1].
|
|
+
|
|
If the `--autosquash` option is enabled by default using the
|
|
configuration variable `rebase.autoSquash`, this option can be
|
|
used to override and disable this setting.
|
|
+
|
|
See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
|
|
|
|
--autostash::
|
|
--no-autostash::
|
|
Automatically create a temporary stash entry before the operation
|
|
begins, and apply it after the operation ends. This means
|
|
that you can run rebase on a dirty worktree. However, use
|
|
with care: the final stash application after a successful
|
|
rebase might result in non-trivial conflicts.
|
|
|
|
--reschedule-failed-exec::
|
|
--no-reschedule-failed-exec::
|
|
Automatically reschedule `exec` commands that failed. This only makes
|
|
sense in interactive mode (or when an `--exec` option was provided).
|
|
|
|
INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
The following options:
|
|
|
|
* --apply
|
|
* --whitespace
|
|
* -C
|
|
|
|
are incompatible with the following options:
|
|
|
|
* --merge
|
|
* --strategy
|
|
* --strategy-option
|
|
* --allow-empty-message
|
|
* --[no-]autosquash
|
|
* --rebase-merges
|
|
* --preserve-merges
|
|
* --interactive
|
|
* --exec
|
|
* --no-keep-empty
|
|
* --empty=
|
|
* --reapply-cherry-picks
|
|
* --edit-todo
|
|
* --root when used in combination with --onto
|
|
|
|
In addition, the following pairs of options are incompatible:
|
|
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --interactive
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --signoff
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --empty=
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --ignore-whitespace
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --committer-date-is-author-date
|
|
* --preserve-merges and --ignore-date
|
|
* --keep-base and --onto
|
|
* --keep-base and --root
|
|
* --fork-point and --root
|
|
|
|
BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
git rebase has two primary backends: apply and merge. (The apply
|
|
backend used to be known as the 'am' backend, but the name led to
|
|
confusion as it looks like a verb instead of a noun. Also, the merge
|
|
backend used to be known as the interactive backend, but it is now
|
|
used for non-interactive cases as well. Both were renamed based on
|
|
lower-level functionality that underpinned each.) There are some
|
|
subtle differences in how these two backends behave:
|
|
|
|
Empty commits
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The apply backend unfortunately drops intentionally empty commits, i.e.
|
|
commits that started empty, though these are rare in practice. It
|
|
also drops commits that become empty and has no option for controlling
|
|
this behavior.
|
|
|
|
The merge backend keeps intentionally empty commits by default (though
|
|
with -i they are marked as empty in the todo list editor, or they can
|
|
be dropped automatically with --no-keep-empty).
|
|
|
|
Similar to the apply backend, by default the merge backend drops
|
|
commits that become empty unless -i/--interactive is specified (in
|
|
which case it stops and asks the user what to do). The merge backend
|
|
also has an --empty={drop,keep,ask} option for changing the behavior
|
|
of handling commits that become empty.
|
|
|
|
Directory rename detection
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Due to the lack of accurate tree information (arising from
|
|
constructing fake ancestors with the limited information available in
|
|
patches), directory rename detection is disabled in the apply backend.
|
|
Disabled directory rename detection means that if one side of history
|
|
renames a directory and the other adds new files to the old directory,
|
|
then the new files will be left behind in the old directory without
|
|
any warning at the time of rebasing that you may want to move these
|
|
files into the new directory.
|
|
|
|
Directory rename detection works with the merge backend to provide you
|
|
warnings in such cases.
|
|
|
|
Context
|
|
~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The apply backend works by creating a sequence of patches (by calling
|
|
`format-patch` internally), and then applying the patches in sequence
|
|
(calling `am` internally). Patches are composed of multiple hunks,
|
|
each with line numbers, a context region, and the actual changes. The
|
|
line numbers have to be taken with some fuzz, since the other side
|
|
will likely have inserted or deleted lines earlier in the file. The
|
|
context region is meant to help find how to adjust the line numbers in
|
|
order to apply the changes to the right lines. However, if multiple
|
|
areas of the code have the same surrounding lines of context, the
|
|
wrong one can be picked. There are real-world cases where this has
|
|
caused commits to be reapplied incorrectly with no conflicts reported.
|
|
Setting diff.context to a larger value may prevent such types of
|
|
problems, but increases the chance of spurious conflicts (since it
|
|
will require more lines of matching context to apply).
|
|
|
|
The merge backend works with a full copy of each relevant file,
|
|
insulating it from these types of problems.
|
|
|
|
Labelling of conflicts markers
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
When there are content conflicts, the merge machinery tries to
|
|
annotate each side's conflict markers with the commits where the
|
|
content came from. Since the apply backend drops the original
|
|
information about the rebased commits and their parents (and instead
|
|
generates new fake commits based off limited information in the
|
|
generated patches), those commits cannot be identified; instead it has
|
|
to fall back to a commit summary. Also, when merge.conflictStyle is
|
|
set to diff3, the apply backend will use "constructed merge base" to
|
|
label the content from the merge base, and thus provide no information
|
|
about the merge base commit whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
The merge backend works with the full commits on both sides of history
|
|
and thus has no such limitations.
|
|
|
|
Hooks
|
|
~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The apply backend has not traditionally called the post-commit hook,
|
|
while the merge backend has. Both have called the post-checkout hook,
|
|
though the merge backend has squelched its output. Further, both
|
|
backends only call the post-checkout hook with the starting point
|
|
commit of the rebase, not the intermediate commits nor the final
|
|
commit. In each case, the calling of these hooks was by accident of
|
|
implementation rather than by design (both backends were originally
|
|
implemented as shell scripts and happened to invoke other commands
|
|
like 'git checkout' or 'git commit' that would call the hooks). Both
|
|
backends should have the same behavior, though it is not entirely
|
|
clear which, if any, is correct. We will likely make rebase stop
|
|
calling either of these hooks in the future.
|
|
|
|
Interruptability
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The apply backend has safety problems with an ill-timed interrupt; if
|
|
the user presses Ctrl-C at the wrong time to try to abort the rebase,
|
|
the rebase can enter a state where it cannot be aborted with a
|
|
subsequent `git rebase --abort`. The merge backend does not appear to
|
|
suffer from the same shortcoming. (See
|
|
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200207132152.GC2868@szeder.dev/ for
|
|
details.)
|
|
|
|
Commit Rewording
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
When a conflict occurs while rebasing, rebase stops and asks the user
|
|
to resolve. Since the user may need to make notable changes while
|
|
resolving conflicts, after conflicts are resolved and the user has run
|
|
`git rebase --continue`, the rebase should open an editor and ask the
|
|
user to update the commit message. The merge backend does this, while
|
|
the apply backend blindly applies the original commit message.
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous differences
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
There are a few more behavioral differences that most folks would
|
|
probably consider inconsequential but which are mentioned for
|
|
completeness:
|
|
|
|
* Reflog: The two backends will use different wording when describing
|
|
the changes made in the reflog, though both will make use of the
|
|
word "rebase".
|
|
|
|
* Progress, informational, and error messages: The two backends
|
|
provide slightly different progress and informational messages.
|
|
Also, the apply backend writes error messages (such as "Your files
|
|
would be overwritten...") to stdout, while the merge backend writes
|
|
them to stderr.
|
|
|
|
* State directories: The two backends keep their state in different
|
|
directories under .git/
|
|
|
|
include::merge-strategies.txt[]
|
|
|
|
NOTES
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
You should understand the implications of using 'git rebase' on a
|
|
repository that you share. See also RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
|
|
below.
|
|
|
|
When the git-rebase command is run, it will first execute a "pre-rebase"
|
|
hook if one exists. You can use this hook to do sanity checks and
|
|
reject the rebase if it isn't appropriate. Please see the template
|
|
pre-rebase hook script for an example.
|
|
|
|
Upon completion, <branch> will be the current branch.
|
|
|
|
INTERACTIVE MODE
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Rebasing interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits
|
|
which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can
|
|
remove them (weeding out bad or otherwise unwanted patches).
|
|
|
|
The interactive mode is meant for this type of workflow:
|
|
|
|
1. have a wonderful idea
|
|
2. hack on the code
|
|
3. prepare a series for submission
|
|
4. submit
|
|
|
|
where point 2. consists of several instances of
|
|
|
|
a) regular use
|
|
|
|
1. finish something worthy of a commit
|
|
2. commit
|
|
|
|
b) independent fixup
|
|
|
|
1. realize that something does not work
|
|
2. fix that
|
|
3. commit it
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the thing fixed in b.2. cannot be amended to the not-quite
|
|
perfect commit it fixes, because that commit is buried deeply in a
|
|
patch series. That is exactly what interactive rebase is for: use it
|
|
after plenty of "a"s and "b"s, by rearranging and editing
|
|
commits, and squashing multiple commits into one.
|
|
|
|
Start it with the last commit you want to retain as-is:
|
|
|
|
git rebase -i <after-this-commit>
|
|
|
|
An editor will be fired up with all the commits in your current branch
|
|
(ignoring merge commits), which come after the given commit. You can
|
|
reorder the commits in this list to your heart's content, and you can
|
|
remove them. The list looks more or less like this:
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
pick deadbee The oneline of this commit
|
|
pick fa1afe1 The oneline of the next commit
|
|
...
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The oneline descriptions are purely for your pleasure; 'git rebase' will
|
|
not look at them but at the commit names ("deadbee" and "fa1afe1" in this
|
|
example), so do not delete or edit the names.
|
|
|
|
By replacing the command "pick" with the command "edit", you can tell
|
|
'git rebase' to stop after applying that commit, so that you can edit
|
|
the files and/or the commit message, amend the commit, and continue
|
|
rebasing.
|
|
|
|
To interrupt the rebase (just like an "edit" command would do, but without
|
|
cherry-picking any commit first), use the "break" command.
|
|
|
|
If you just want to edit the commit message for a commit, replace the
|
|
command "pick" with the command "reword".
|
|
|
|
To drop a commit, replace the command "pick" with "drop", or just
|
|
delete the matching line.
|
|
|
|
If you want to fold two or more commits into one, replace the command
|
|
"pick" for the second and subsequent commits with "squash" or "fixup".
|
|
If the commits had different authors, the folded commit will be
|
|
attributed to the author of the first commit. The suggested commit
|
|
message for the folded commit is the concatenation of the first
|
|
commit's message with those identified by "squash" commands, omitting the
|
|
messages of commits identified by "fixup" commands, unless "fixup -c"
|
|
is used. In that case the suggested commit message is only the message
|
|
of the "fixup -c" commit, and an editor is opened allowing you to edit
|
|
the message. The contents (patch) of the "fixup -c" commit are still
|
|
incorporated into the folded commit. If there is more than one "fixup -c"
|
|
commit, the message from the final one is used. You can also use
|
|
"fixup -C" to get the same behavior as "fixup -c" except without opening
|
|
an editor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
'git rebase' will stop when "pick" has been replaced with "edit" or
|
|
when a command fails due to merge errors. When you are done editing
|
|
and/or resolving conflicts you can continue with `git rebase --continue`.
|
|
|
|
For example, if you want to reorder the last 5 commits, such that what
|
|
was HEAD~4 becomes the new HEAD. To achieve that, you would call
|
|
'git rebase' like this:
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
$ git rebase -i HEAD~5
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
And move the first patch to the end of the list.
|
|
|
|
You might want to recreate merge commits, e.g. if you have a history
|
|
like this:
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
X
|
|
\
|
|
A---M---B
|
|
/
|
|
---o---O---P---Q
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Suppose you want to rebase the side branch starting at "A" to "Q". Make
|
|
sure that the current HEAD is "B", and call
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
$ git rebase -i -r --onto Q O
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
Reordering and editing commits usually creates untested intermediate
|
|
steps. You may want to check that your history editing did not break
|
|
anything by running a test, or at least recompiling at intermediate
|
|
points in history by using the "exec" command (shortcut "x"). You may
|
|
do so by creating a todo list like this one:
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
|
|
fixup f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
|
|
exec make
|
|
pick c0ffeee The oneline of the next commit
|
|
edit deadbab The oneline of the commit after
|
|
exec cd subdir; make test
|
|
...
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The interactive rebase will stop when a command fails (i.e. exits with
|
|
non-0 status) to give you an opportunity to fix the problem. You can
|
|
continue with `git rebase --continue`.
|
|
|
|
The "exec" command launches the command in a shell (the one specified
|
|
in `$SHELL`, or the default shell if `$SHELL` is not set), so you can
|
|
use shell features (like "cd", ">", ";" ...). The command is run from
|
|
the root of the working tree.
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
$ git rebase -i --exec "make test"
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This command lets you check that intermediate commits are compilable.
|
|
The todo list becomes like that:
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
pick 5928aea one
|
|
exec make test
|
|
pick 04d0fda two
|
|
exec make test
|
|
pick ba46169 three
|
|
exec make test
|
|
pick f4593f9 four
|
|
exec make test
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
SPLITTING COMMITS
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
In interactive mode, you can mark commits with the action "edit". However,
|
|
this does not necessarily mean that 'git rebase' expects the result of this
|
|
edit to be exactly one commit. Indeed, you can undo the commit, or you can
|
|
add other commits. This can be used to split a commit into two:
|
|
|
|
- Start an interactive rebase with `git rebase -i <commit>^`, where
|
|
<commit> is the commit you want to split. In fact, any commit range
|
|
will do, as long as it contains that commit.
|
|
|
|
- Mark the commit you want to split with the action "edit".
|
|
|
|
- When it comes to editing that commit, execute `git reset HEAD^`. The
|
|
effect is that the HEAD is rewound by one, and the index follows suit.
|
|
However, the working tree stays the same.
|
|
|
|
- Now add the changes to the index that you want to have in the first
|
|
commit. You can use `git add` (possibly interactively) or
|
|
'git gui' (or both) to do that.
|
|
|
|
- Commit the now-current index with whatever commit message is appropriate
|
|
now.
|
|
|
|
- Repeat the last two steps until your working tree is clean.
|
|
|
|
- Continue the rebase with `git rebase --continue`.
|
|
|
|
If you are not absolutely sure that the intermediate revisions are
|
|
consistent (they compile, pass the testsuite, etc.) you should use
|
|
'git stash' to stash away the not-yet-committed changes
|
|
after each commit, test, and amend the commit if fixes are necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Rebasing (or any other form of rewriting) a branch that others have
|
|
based work on is a bad idea: anyone downstream of it is forced to
|
|
manually fix their history. This section explains how to do the fix
|
|
from the downstream's point of view. The real fix, however, would be
|
|
to avoid rebasing the upstream in the first place.
|
|
|
|
To illustrate, suppose you are in a situation where someone develops a
|
|
'subsystem' branch, and you are working on a 'topic' that is dependent
|
|
on this 'subsystem'. You might end up with a history like the
|
|
following:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
\
|
|
o---o---o---o---o subsystem
|
|
\
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
If 'subsystem' is rebased against 'master', the following happens:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
\ \
|
|
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
|
|
\
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
If you now continue development as usual, and eventually merge 'topic'
|
|
to 'subsystem', the commits from 'subsystem' will remain duplicated forever:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
\ \
|
|
o---o---o---o---o o'--o'--o'--o'--o'--M subsystem
|
|
\ /
|
|
*---*---*-..........-*--* topic
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
Such duplicates are generally frowned upon because they clutter up
|
|
history, making it harder to follow. To clean things up, you need to
|
|
transplant the commits on 'topic' to the new 'subsystem' tip, i.e.,
|
|
rebase 'topic'. This becomes a ripple effect: anyone downstream from
|
|
'topic' is forced to rebase too, and so on!
|
|
|
|
There are two kinds of fixes, discussed in the following subsections:
|
|
|
|
Easy case: The changes are literally the same.::
|
|
|
|
This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase was a simple rebase and
|
|
had no conflicts.
|
|
|
|
Hard case: The changes are not the same.::
|
|
|
|
This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase had conflicts, or used
|
|
`--interactive` to omit, edit, squash, or fixup commits; or
|
|
if the upstream used one of `commit --amend`, `reset`, or
|
|
a full history rewriting command like
|
|
https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo[`filter-repo`].
|
|
|
|
|
|
The easy case
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Only works if the changes (patch IDs based on the diff contents) on
|
|
'subsystem' are literally the same before and after the rebase
|
|
'subsystem' did.
|
|
|
|
In that case, the fix is easy because 'git rebase' knows to skip
|
|
changes that are already present in the new upstream (unless
|
|
`--reapply-cherry-picks` is given). So if you say
|
|
(assuming you're on 'topic')
|
|
------------
|
|
$ git rebase subsystem
|
|
------------
|
|
you will end up with the fixed history
|
|
------------
|
|
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o master
|
|
\
|
|
o'--o'--o'--o'--o' subsystem
|
|
\
|
|
*---*---* topic
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hard case
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Things get more complicated if the 'subsystem' changes do not exactly
|
|
correspond to the ones before the rebase.
|
|
|
|
NOTE: While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful
|
|
even in the hard case, it may have unintended consequences. For
|
|
example, a commit that was removed via `git rebase
|
|
--interactive` will be **resurrected**!
|
|
|
|
The idea is to manually tell 'git rebase' "where the old 'subsystem'
|
|
ended and your 'topic' began", that is, what the old merge base
|
|
between them was. You will have to find a way to name the last commit
|
|
of the old 'subsystem', for example:
|
|
|
|
* With the 'subsystem' reflog: after 'git fetch', the old tip of
|
|
'subsystem' is at `subsystem@{1}`. Subsequent fetches will
|
|
increase the number. (See linkgit:git-reflog[1].)
|
|
|
|
* Relative to the tip of 'topic': knowing that your 'topic' has three
|
|
commits, the old tip of 'subsystem' must be `topic~3`.
|
|
|
|
You can then transplant the old `subsystem..topic` to the new tip by
|
|
saying (for the reflog case, and assuming you are on 'topic' already):
|
|
------------
|
|
$ git rebase --onto subsystem subsystem@{1}
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The ripple effect of a "hard case" recovery is especially bad:
|
|
'everyone' downstream from 'topic' will now have to perform a "hard
|
|
case" recovery too!
|
|
|
|
REBASING MERGES
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
The interactive rebase command was originally designed to handle
|
|
individual patch series. As such, it makes sense to exclude merge
|
|
commits from the todo list, as the developer may have merged the
|
|
then-current `master` while working on the branch, only to rebase
|
|
all the commits onto `master` eventually (skipping the merge
|
|
commits).
|
|
|
|
However, there are legitimate reasons why a developer may want to
|
|
recreate merge commits: to keep the branch structure (or "commit
|
|
topology") when working on multiple, inter-related branches.
|
|
|
|
In the following example, the developer works on a topic branch that
|
|
refactors the way buttons are defined, and on another topic branch
|
|
that uses that refactoring to implement a "Report a bug" button. The
|
|
output of `git log --graph --format=%s -5` may look like this:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
* Merge branch 'report-a-bug'
|
|
|\
|
|
| * Add the feedback button
|
|
* | Merge branch 'refactor-button'
|
|
|\ \
|
|
| |/
|
|
| * Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
| * Extract a generic Button class from the DownloadButton one
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The developer might want to rebase those commits to a newer `master`
|
|
while keeping the branch topology, for example when the first topic
|
|
branch is expected to be integrated into `master` much earlier than the
|
|
second one, say, to resolve merge conflicts with changes to the
|
|
DownloadButton class that made it into `master`.
|
|
|
|
This rebase can be performed using the `--rebase-merges` option.
|
|
It will generate a todo list looking like this:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
label onto
|
|
|
|
# Branch: refactor-button
|
|
reset onto
|
|
pick 123456 Extract a generic Button class from the DownloadButton one
|
|
pick 654321 Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
label refactor-button
|
|
|
|
# Branch: report-a-bug
|
|
reset refactor-button # Use the Button class for all buttons
|
|
pick abcdef Add the feedback button
|
|
label report-a-bug
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
merge -C a1b2c3 refactor-button # Merge 'refactor-button'
|
|
merge -C 6f5e4d report-a-bug # Merge 'report-a-bug'
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
In contrast to a regular interactive rebase, there are `label`, `reset`
|
|
and `merge` commands in addition to `pick` ones.
|
|
|
|
The `label` command associates a label with the current HEAD when that
|
|
command is executed. These labels are created as worktree-local refs
|
|
(`refs/rewritten/<label>`) that will be deleted when the rebase
|
|
finishes. That way, rebase operations in multiple worktrees linked to
|
|
the same repository do not interfere with one another. If the `label`
|
|
command fails, it is rescheduled immediately, with a helpful message how
|
|
to proceed.
|
|
|
|
The `reset` command resets the HEAD, index and worktree to the specified
|
|
revision. It is similar to an `exec git reset --hard <label>`, but
|
|
refuses to overwrite untracked files. If the `reset` command fails, it is
|
|
rescheduled immediately, with a helpful message how to edit the todo list
|
|
(this typically happens when a `reset` command was inserted into the todo
|
|
list manually and contains a typo).
|
|
|
|
The `merge` command will merge the specified revision(s) into whatever
|
|
is HEAD at that time. With `-C <original-commit>`, the commit message of
|
|
the specified merge commit will be used. When the `-C` is changed to
|
|
a lower-case `-c`, the message will be opened in an editor after a
|
|
successful merge so that the user can edit the message.
|
|
|
|
If a `merge` command fails for any reason other than merge conflicts (i.e.
|
|
when the merge operation did not even start), it is rescheduled immediately.
|
|
|
|
At this time, the `merge` command will *always* use the `recursive`
|
|
merge strategy for regular merges, and `octopus` for octopus merges,
|
|
with no way to choose a different one. To work around
|
|
this, an `exec` command can be used to call `git merge` explicitly,
|
|
using the fact that the labels are worktree-local refs (the ref
|
|
`refs/rewritten/onto` would correspond to the label `onto`, for example).
|
|
|
|
Note: the first command (`label onto`) labels the revision onto which
|
|
the commits are rebased; The name `onto` is just a convention, as a nod
|
|
to the `--onto` option.
|
|
|
|
It is also possible to introduce completely new merge commits from scratch
|
|
by adding a command of the form `merge <merge-head>`. This form will
|
|
generate a tentative commit message and always open an editor to let the
|
|
user edit it. This can be useful e.g. when a topic branch turns out to
|
|
address more than a single concern and wants to be split into two or
|
|
even more topic branches. Consider this todo list:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
pick 192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
|
|
pick 5a6c7e Document the switch to CMake
|
|
pick 918273 Fix detection of OpenSSL in CMake
|
|
pick afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
|
|
pick fdbaec Fix detection of cURL in CMake on Windows
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
The one commit in this list that is not related to CMake may very well
|
|
have been motivated by working on fixing all those bugs introduced by
|
|
switching to CMake, but it addresses a different concern. To split this
|
|
branch into two topic branches, the todo list could be edited like this:
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
label onto
|
|
|
|
pick afbecd http: add support for TLS v1.3
|
|
label tlsv1.3
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
pick 192837 Switch from GNU Makefiles to CMake
|
|
pick 918273 Fix detection of OpenSSL in CMake
|
|
pick fdbaec Fix detection of cURL in CMake on Windows
|
|
pick 5a6c7e Document the switch to CMake
|
|
label cmake
|
|
|
|
reset onto
|
|
merge tlsv1.3
|
|
merge cmake
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
BUGS
|
|
----
|
|
The todo list presented by the deprecated `--preserve-merges --interactive`
|
|
does not represent the topology of the revision graph (use `--rebase-merges`
|
|
instead). Editing commits and rewording their commit messages should work
|
|
fine, but attempts to reorder commits tend to produce counterintuitive results.
|
|
Use `--rebase-merges` in such scenarios instead.
|
|
|
|
For example, an attempt to rearrange
|
|
------------
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
|
|
------------
|
|
to
|
|
------------
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 3 --- 5
|
|
------------
|
|
by moving the "pick 4" line will result in the following history:
|
|
------------
|
|
3
|
|
/
|
|
1 --- 2 --- 4 --- 5
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
GIT
|
|
---
|
|
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite
|