If we are not rebasing with --root, then $# can only be either 1 (base)
or 2 (base and the name of the branch to be rebased).
If we are rebasing with --root, then it is Ok if $# is 0 (rebase the
current branch down to everything) or 1 (rebase the named branch down to
everything).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* tr/rebase-root:
rebase: update documentation for --root
rebase -i: learn to rebase root commit
rebase: learn to rebase root commit
rebase -i: execute hook only after argument checking
Prior to that, if the user chose "squash" as a first action, the stderr
looked like:
grep: /home/madcoder/dev/scm/git/.git/rebase-merge/done: No such file or directory
Cannot 'squash' without a previous commit
Now the first line is gone.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Teach git-rebase -i a new option --root, which instructs it to rebase
the entire history leading up to <branch>. This is mainly for
symmetry with ordinary git-rebase; it cannot be used to edit the root
commit in-place (it requires --onto <newbase>). Commits that already
exist in <newbase> are skipped.
In the normal mode of operation, this is fairly straightforward. We
run cherry-pick in a loop, and cherry-pick has supported picking the
root commit since f95ebf7 (Allow cherry-picking root commits,
2008-07-04).
In --preserve-merges mode, we track the mapping from old to rewritten
commits and use it to update the parent list of each commit. In this
case, we define 'rebase -i -p --root --onto $onto $branch' to rewrite
the parent list of all root commit(s) on $branch to contain $onto
instead.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Previously, the pre-rebase-hook would be launched before we knew if
the <upstream> [<branch>] arguments were supplied.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When a merge that has a conflict was rebased, then rebase stopped to let
the user resolve the conflicts. However, thereafter --continue failed
because the author-script was not saved. (This is rebase -i's way to
preserve a commit's authorship.) This fixes it by doing taking the same
failure route after a merge that is also taken after a normal cherry-pick.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* sh/rebase-i-p:
git-rebase--interactive.sh: comparision with == is bashism
rebase-i-p: minimum fix to obvious issues
rebase-i-p: if todo was reordered use HEAD as the rewritten parent
rebase-i-p: do not include non-first-parent commits touching UPSTREAM
rebase-i-p: only list commits that require rewriting in todo
rebase-i-p: fix 'no squashing merges' tripping up non-merges
rebase-i-p: delay saving current-commit to REWRITTEN if squashing
rebase-i-p: use HEAD for updating the ref instead of mapping OLDHEAD
rebase-i-p: test to exclude commits from todo based on its parents
Jeff King noticed that this series uses non-portable ${var:0:7} syntax
to splice a string, which is not even in POSIX, in the script. A quick
look at around the offending part revealed a few issues, which this commit
fixes:
* Why filter output from "rev-list --left-right A...B" and look for the
ones that begin with ">"? Wouldn't "rev-list A..B" give that?
* The abbreviated SHA-1 are made with "rev-list --abbrev=7" into $TODO in
an earlier invocation, and it can be more than 7 letters to avoid
ambiguity. Not just that "${r:0:7} is not even in POSIX", but use of
it here is actively wrong.
* There is no point in catting a single file and piping it into grep.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This seems like the best guess we can make until git sequencer marks are
available. That being said, within the context of re-ordering a commit before
its parent in todo, I think applying it on top of the current commit seems like
a reasonable assumption of what the user intended.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This covers an odd boundary case found by Avi Kivity's script where a branch
coming off of UPSTREAM is merged into HEAD. Initially it show up in
UPSTREAM..HEAD, but technically UPSTREAM is not moving, the rest of head is, so
we should not need to rewrite the merge.
This adds a check saying we can keep `preserve=t` if `p=UPSTREAM`...unless this
is the first first-parent commit in our UPSTREAM..HEAD rev-list, which could
very well point to UPSTREAM, but we still need to consider it as rewritten so we
start pulling in the rest of the UPSTREAM..HEAD commits that point to it.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is heavily based on Stephan Beyer's git sequencer rewrite of rebase-i-p.
Each commit is still found by rev-list UPSTREAM..HEAD, but a commit is only
included in todo if at least one its parents has been marked for rewriting.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Also only check out the first parent if this commit if not a squash--if it is a
squash, we want to explicitly ignore the parent and leave the wc as is, as
cherry-pick will apply the squash on top of it.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If the current-commit was dumped to REWRITTEN, but then we squash the next
commit in to it, we have invalidated the HEAD was just written to REWRITTEN.
Instead, append the squash hash to current-commit and save both of them the next
time around.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If OLDHEAD was reordered in the todo, and its mapped NEWHEAD was used to set the
ref, commits reordered after OLDHEAD in the todo would should up as un-committed
changes.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
`rebase -i -p` got its rev-list of commits to keep by --left-right and
--cherry-pick. Adding --cherry-pick would drop commits that duplicated changes
already in the rebase target.
The dropped commits were then forgotten about when it came to rewriting the
parents of their descendents, so the descendents would get cherry-picked with
their old, unwritten parents and essentially make the rebase a no-op.
This commit adds a $DOTEST/dropped directory to remember dropped commits and
rewrite their children's parent as the dropped commit's possibly-rewritten
first-parent.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
In case there is no commit to apply (for example because you rebase to
upstream and all your local patches have been applied there), do not
fail. The non-interactive rebase already behaves that way.
Do this by introducing a new command, "noop", which is substituted for
an empty commit list, so that deleting the commit list can still abort
as before.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
It is sometimes desirable to disable the safety net of pre-rebase hook
when the user knows what he is doing (for example, when the original
changes on the branch have not been shown to the public yet).
This teaches --no-verify option to git-rebase, which is similar to the way
pre-commit hook is bypassed by git-commit.
Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
The original git-rebase honored pre-rebase hook so that public branches
can be protected from getting rebased, but rebase --interactive ignored
the hook entirely. This fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
One would expect that the prepare-commit-msg hook gets 'squash' as the
second argument when squashing commits with 'rebase -i'. However,
that was not the case, as it got 'merge' instead. This patch fixes
the problem.
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
"git rebase --continue" issued after git rebase being stop by "edit"
command is trying to amend the last commit using stage changes. However,
if the last commit is not the commit that was marked as "edit" then it
can produce unexpected results.
For instance, after being stop by "edit", I have made some changes to
commit message using "git commit --amend". After that I realized that
I forgot to add some changes to some file. So, I said "git add file"
and the "git rebase --continue". Unfortunately, it caused that the new
commit message was lost.
Another problem is that after being stopped at "edit", the user adds new
commits. In this case, automatic amend behavior of git rebase triggered
by some stage changes causes that not only that the log message of the
last commit is lost but that it will contain also wrong Author and Date
information.
Therefore, this patch restrict automatic amend only to the situation
where HEAD is the commit at which git rebase stop by "edit" command.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If git rebase interactive is stopped by "edit" command and then the user
said "git rebase --continue" while having some stage changes, git rebase
interactive is trying to amend the last commit by doing:
git --soft reset && git commit
However, the user can abort commit for some reason by providing an empty
log message, and that would leave the last commit undone, while the user
being completely unaware about what happened. Now if the user tries to
continue, by issuing "git rebase --continue" that squashes two previous
commits.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The existing parent rewriting did not handle the case where a previous
commit was amended (via edit or squash). Fix by always putting the
new sha1 of the last commit into the $REWRITTEN map.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
'git rebase -i -p' forgot to update the index and working directory
during fast forwards. Fix this. Makes 'GIT_EDITOR=true rebase -i -p
<ancestor>' a no-op again.
Also, it attempted to do a fast forward even if it was instructed not
to commit (via -n). Fall back to the cherry-pick code path and let
that handle the issue for us.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
In a rebase session where more than one commit is to be 'edit'ed, and the
user spends considerable time to 'edit' a commit, it is easy to forget what
one wanted to 'edit' at the individual commits. It would be helpful to see
at which commit the rebase stopped.
Incidentally, if the rebase stopped due to merge conflicts or other errors,
the commit was already reported ("Could not apply $sha1..."), but when
rebase stopped after successfully applying an "edit" commit, it would not
mention it. With this change the commit is reported.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* maint:
Start preparing 1.5.6.4 release notes
git fetch-pack: do not complain about "no common commits" in an empty repo
rebase-i: keep old parents when preserving merges
t7600-merge: Use test_expect_failure to test option parsing
Fix buffer overflow in prepare_attr_stack
Fix buffer overflow in git diff
Fix buffer overflow in git-grep
git-cvsserver: fix call to nonexistant cleanupWorkDir()
Documentation/git-cherry-pick.txt et al.: Fix misleading -n description
Conflicts:
RelNotes
When "rebase -i -p" tries to preserve merges of unrelated branches, it
lost some parents:
- When you have more than two parents, the commit in the new history
ends up with fewer than expected number of parents and this breakage
goes unnoticed;
- When you are rebasing a merge with two parents and one is lost, the
command tries to cherry-pick the original merge commit, and the command
fails.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since the files generated and used during a rebase are never to be
tracked, they should live in $GIT_DIR. While at it, avoid the rather
meaningless term "dotest" to "rebase", and unhide ".dotest-merge".
This was wished for on the mailing list, but so far unimplemented.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Also add some checks that --continue/--abort/--skip
actions are used without --onto, -p, -t, etc.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"merge" and "reset" leave the original point in history in ORIG_HEAD,
which makes it easy to go back to where you were before you inflict a
major damage to your history and realize that you do not like the result
at all. These days with reflog, we technically do not need to use
ORIG_HEAD, but it is a handy way nevertheless.
This teaches "am" and "rebase" (all forms --- the vanilla one that uses
"am" as its backend, "-m" variant that cherry-picks, and "--interactive")
to do the same.
The original idea and a partial implementation to do this only for "rebase
-m" was by Brian Gernhardt; this extends on his idea.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git rebase -i already supports 'p', 'e' and 's' as aliases for 'pick',
'edit' and 'squash', but one could know it only by reading the source
code. If a user rebases a lot, it's quite handy, so mention these short
forms as well.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If the upstream argument to rebase (the first argument) was relative to
HEAD and the name of the branch to rebase (the second argument) was given,
the upstream would have been interpreted relative to the second argument.
In particular, this command
git rebase -i HEAD topic
would always finish with "Nothing to do". (a1bf91e fixed the same issue
for non-interactive rebase.)
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When rebasing or stashing, chances are that you do not care about
dirty submodules, since they are not updated by those actions anyway.
So ignore the submodules' states.
Note: the submodule states -- as committed in the superproject --
will still be stashed and rebased, it is _just_ the state of the
submodule in the working tree which is ignored.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "-n" syntax is not supported by System V versions of
tail (which prefer "tail -1"). Unfortunately "tail -1" is
not actually POSIX. We had some of both forms in our
scripts.
Since neither form works everywhere, this patch replaces
both with the equivalent sed invocation:
sed -ne '$p'
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
System V versions of grep (such as Solaris /usr/bin/grep)
don't understand either of these options. git's usage of
"grep -e pattern" fell into one of two categories:
1. equivalent to "grep pattern". -e is only useful here if
the pattern begins with a "-", but all of the patterns
are hardcoded and do not begin with a dash.
2. stripping comments and blank lines with
grep -v -e "^$" -e "^#"
We can fortunately do this in the affirmative as
grep '^[^#]'
Uses of "-q" can be replaced with redirection to /dev/null.
In many tests, however, "grep -q" is used as "if this string
is in the expected output, we are OK". In this case, it is
fine to just remove the "-q" entirely; it simply makes the
"verbose" mode of the test slightly more verbose.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
On hitting an edit point in an interactive rebase, git should prompt
the user to run "git rebase --continue"
Signed-off-by: Jonathan del Strother <jon.delStrother@bestbefore.tv>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The command repeats "Rebasing (1/1)" many times even when
there is only one task remaining, because mark_action_done() is
called to skip comment and empty lines in the TODO file.
This should fix it.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
After replaying a single change, the code performed a number of checks,
but some of them were for sanity checking, failures from which should
make the command abort, and others were checks to see if it should make
a new commit object. Stringing them together with "&&" was wrong.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The commit message template when squashing multiple commits is
prepared by concatenating the messages of existing commits
together. If the messages from some of them end with incomplete
lines, this would result in a suboptimal message template. Make
sure that we add a terminating LF after each commit message.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
During git-rebase --interactive's --continue implementation we used
to silently restart the rebase if the user had made the commit
for us. This is common if the user stops to edit a commit and
does so by amending it. My recent change to watch git-commit's
exit status broke this behavior.
Thanks to Bernt Hansen for catching it in 1.5.4-rc1.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If git-commit fails for any reason then git-rebase needs to stop
and not plow through the rest of the series. Its unlikely that
a future git-commit will succeed if the current attempt failed.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If we are rebasing changes that contain potential whitespace
errors that our .git/hooks/pre-commit hook looks for and fails
on then git-commit will fail to commit that change. This causes
git-rebase--interactive to squash commits together, even though it
was not requested to do so by the todo file.
Passing --no-verify to git-commit makes git-rebase -i behave more
like git-rebase normally would in such conditions, providing more
consistent behavior between the different rebase implementations.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
