Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Sergei, > > Sergei Organov wrote: > >> --C-- >> / \ >> / ----M topic,HEAD >> / / >> A---B master >> >> shouldn't >> >> $ git rebase master >> >> be a no-op here? > [...] >> I'd expect --force-rebase to be required for this to happen: >> >> -f, --force-rebase >> Force the rebase even if the current branch is a descendant of the >> commit you are rebasing onto. Normally non-interactive rebase will >> exit with the message "Current branch is up to date" in such a >> situation. > [...] >> Do you think it's worth fixing? > > Thanks for a clear report. > > After a successful 'git rebase master', the current branch is always a > linear string of patches on top of 'master'. The "already up to date" > behavior when -f is not passed is in a certain sense an optimization > --- it is about git noticing that 'git rebase' wouldn't have anything > to do (except for touching timestamps) and therefore doing nothing. > > So I don't think requiring -f for this case would be an improvement.
What actually bothers me is the unfortunate consequence that "git pull" is not always a no-op when nothing was changed at the origin since the last "git pull". THIS is really surprising and probably should better be fixed. Requiring -f is just one (obvious) way to fix this. > I do agree that the documentation is misleading. Any ideas for > wording that could make it clearer? I can't suggest anything as I don't see why -f is there in the first place. What are use cases? -- Sergey. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html