Web lists-archives.com

Re: Is rebase --force-rebase any different from rebase --no-ff?

I tried to compare --force-rebase VS --no-ff for the following repository:

There's no difference in the resulf of:
git rebase --force-rebase 54a4
git rebase --no-ff 54a4

(rebases all 3 commits of feature)

Also, there's no difference in interactive mode:
git rebase --force-rebase -i 54a4
git rebase --no-ff -i 54a4

(picks all 3 commits of feature)

Is there a case where --no-ff differs from --force-rebase?

Best Regards,
Ilya Kantor

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 02:21 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> +cc Marc and Johannes who know more about rebase.
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Ilya Kantor <iliakan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Right now in "git help rebase" for --no-ff:
>>> "Without --interactive, this is a synonym for --force-rebase."
>>> But *with* --interactive, is there any difference?
>> I found
>> https://code.googlesource.com/git/+/b499549401cb2b1f6c30d09681380fd519938eb0
>> from 2010-03-24
> In the original discussion around this option [1], at one point I proposed
> teaching rebase--interactive to respect --force-rebase instead of adding a
> new option [2].  Ultimately --no-ff was chosen as the better user interface
> design [3], because an interactive rebase can't be "forced" to run.
> At the time, I think rebase--interactive only recognized --no-ff.  That
> might have been muddled a bit in the migration to rebase--helper.c.
> Looking at it now, I don't have a strong opinion about keeping both options
> or deprecating one of them.
>                 M.
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/4B9FD9C1.9060200@xxxxxxxxxxx/t/
> [2]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/1269361187-31291-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/7vzl1yd5j4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>      Teach rebase the --no-ff option.
>>      For git-rebase.sh, --no-ff is a synonym for --force-rebase.
>>      For git-rebase--interactive.sh, --no-ff cherry-picks all the commits
>> in
>>      the rebased branch, instead of fast-forwarding over any unchanged
>> commits.
>>      --no-ff offers an alternative way to deal with reverted merges.
>> Instead of
>>      "reverting the revert" you can use "rebase --no-ff" to recreate the
>> branch
>>      with entirely new commits (they're new because at the very least the
>>      committer time is different).  This obviates the need to revert the
>>      reversion, as you can re-merge the new topic branch directly.  Added
>> an
>>      addendum to revert-a-faulty-merge.txt describing the situation and
>> how to
>>      use --no-ff to handle it.
>> which sounds as if there is?
>> Stefan