about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt')
-rw-r--r--third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt310
1 files changed, 271 insertions, 39 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 6156609cf7..38e15488f6 100644
--- a/third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/third_party/git/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ git-rebase - Reapply commits on top of another base tip
 SYNOPSIS
 --------
 [verse]
-'git rebase' [-i | --interactive] [<options>] [--exec <cmd>] [--onto <newbase>]
-	[<upstream> [<branch>]]
+'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)
@@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ CONFIGURATION
 -------------
 
 include::config/rebase.txt[]
+include::config/sequencer.txt[]
 
 OPTIONS
 -------
@@ -217,6 +218,24 @@ 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
@@ -238,18 +257,79 @@ leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD.
 --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.
+	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::
-	Keep the commits that do not change anything from its
-	parents in the result.
+	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::
-	By default, rebasing commits with an empty message will fail.
-	This option overrides that behavior, allowing commits with empty
-	messages to be rebased.
+	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.
 
@@ -268,7 +348,7 @@ See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 --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.
+	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
@@ -307,9 +387,12 @@ See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 
 -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.
+	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::
@@ -338,7 +421,7 @@ See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 	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.
+	ever ignored.  Implies --apply.
 +
 See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 
@@ -367,20 +450,48 @@ When --fork-point is active, 'fork_point' will be used instead of
 <branch>` command (see linkgit:git-merge-base[1]).  If 'fork_point'
 ends up being empty, the <upstream> will be used as a fallback.
 +
-If either <upstream> or --root is given on the command line, then the
-default is `--no-fork-point`, otherwise the default is `--fork-point`.
+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>::
-	These flag are passed to the 'git apply' program
+	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::
-	These flags are passed to 'git am' to easily change the dates
-	of the rebased commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
+--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.
 
@@ -421,8 +532,8 @@ 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 in contrast to that option works well in interactive
-rebases: commits can be reordered, inserted and dropped at will.
+`--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
@@ -517,10 +628,8 @@ INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS
 
 The following options:
 
- * --committer-date-is-author-date
- * --ignore-date
+ * --apply
  * --whitespace
- * --ignore-whitespace
  * -C
 
 are incompatible with the following options:
@@ -534,7 +643,9 @@ are incompatible with the following options:
  * --preserve-merges
  * --interactive
  * --exec
- * --keep-empty
+ * --no-keep-empty
+ * --empty=
+ * --reapply-cherry-picks
  * --edit-todo
  * --root when used in combination with --onto
 
@@ -543,33 +654,152 @@ In addition, the following pairs of options are incompatible:
  * --preserve-merges and --interactive
  * --preserve-merges and --signoff
  * --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges
- * --rebase-merges and --strategy
- * --rebase-merges and --strategy-option
+ * --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
 -----------------------
 
-There are some subtle differences how the backends behave.
+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 am backend drops any "empty" commits, regardless of whether the
-commit started empty (had no changes relative to its parent to
-start with) or ended empty (all changes were already applied
-upstream in other 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).
 
-The interactive backend drops commits by default that
-started empty and halts if it hits a commit that ended up empty.
-The `--keep-empty` option exists for the interactive backend to allow
-it to keep commits that started 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
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-Directory rename heuristics are enabled in the merge and interactive
-backends.  Due to the lack of accurate tree information, directory
-rename detection is disabled in the am backend.
+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[]
 
@@ -832,7 +1062,8 @@ 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
-	`filter-branch`.
+	a full history rewriting command like
+	https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo[`filter-repo`].
 
 
 The easy case
@@ -843,7 +1074,8 @@ Only works if the changes (patch IDs based on the diff contents) on
 'subsystem' did.
 
 In that case, the fix is easy because 'git rebase' knows to skip
-changes that are already present in the new upstream.  So if you say
+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
@@ -870,7 +1102,7 @@ NOTE: While an "easy case recovery" sometimes appears to be successful
       --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
+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: