Thomas Rast <> wrote:

>> Please take a closer look at the last two test cases that specify the
>> expected behaviour of rebasing a branch that tracks the empty tree.
>> At this point they expect the "Nothing to do" error (aborts with
>> untouched history). This is consistent with rebasing only empty
>> commits without `--root`, which also doesn't just delete them from
>> the history. Furthermore, I think the two alternatives adding a note
>> that all commits in the range were empty, and removing the empty
>> commits (thus making the branch empty) are better discussed in a
>> separate bug report.
> Makes sense to me, though I have never thought much about rebasing empty
> commits.  Maybe Chris has a more informed opinion?

I definitely agree with you both that --root should be (and isn't)
consistent with normal interactive rebasing. The difference isn't deliberate
on my part.

On a personal note, I've always disliked the way interactive rebase stops
when you pick an existing empty commit or empty log message rather than
preserving it. Jumping through a few hoops is perhaps sensible when you
create that kind of strange commit, but just annoying when picking an
existing empty/logless commit as part of a series. But as you say, that's
a separate issue than --root behaving differently to non --root.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to