Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt - git - Git at Google

 From:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
 To:	git@vger.kernel.org
 Cc:	Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
 Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
 Date:	Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
 Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the
  public "pu" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
  the "master" branch, and how "rebase" works.  Also discussed
  is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches
  upstream.
 Content-type: text/asciidoc

 How to rebase from an internal branch
 =====================================

 --------------------------------------
 Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

 > Dear diary, on Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:57:13AM CEST, I got a letter
 > where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
 >> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
 >>
 >> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
 >> > branch to the real branches.
 >>
 > Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
 --------------------------------------

 Exactly my feeling.  I was sort of waiting for Catalin to speak
 up.  With its basing philosophical ancestry on quilt, this is
 the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.

 I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
 Git tools.

 I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
 wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
 placing new things in pu first.  At the beginning, the commit
 ancestry graph looked like this:

                              *"pu" head
     master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3

 So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:

     $ git checkout master
     $ cd Documentation; ed git.txt ...
     $ cd ..; git add Documentation/*.txt
     $ git commit -s

 After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:

                               *"pu" head
     master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
           \
             \---> master

 The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
 The new master commit holds my documentation updates.

 Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.

 This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
 Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
 at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
 branch being the "contributor" branch.  Your work started at the
 tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
 progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
 other commits you do not have yet.  And "git rebase" was written
 with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
 "pu".  You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
 eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
 all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
 operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
 your changes) "pu" rather than merge.  So I ran "git rebase":

     $ git checkout pu
     $ git rebase master pu

 What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
 branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
 master branch, and forward port these changes.

     master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
           \                                  *"pu" head
             \---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'

 The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
 committed to create #1' commit with the commit information (log,
 author and date) taken from commit #1.  On top of that #2' and #3'
 commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.

 Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
 anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
 you ran fsck-cache, which is normal.  After testing "pu", you
 can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.

 While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
 to do cherrypicking using only the core Git tools.

 Let's go back to the earlier picture, with different labels.

 You, as an individual developer, cloned upstream repository and
 made a couple of commits on top of it.

                               *your "master" head
    upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3

 You would want changes #2 and #3 incorporated in the upstream,
 while you feel that #1 may need further improvements.  So you
 prepare #2 and #3 for e-mail submission.

     $ git format-patch master^^ master

 This creates two files, 0001-XXXX.patch and 0002-XXXX.patch.  Send
 them out "To: " your project maintainer and "Cc: " your mailing
 list.  You could use contributed script git-send-email if
 your host has necessary perl modules for this, but your usual
 MUA would do as long as it does not corrupt whitespaces in the
 patch.

 Then you would wait, and you find out that the upstream picked
 up your changes, along with other changes.

    where                      *your "master" head
   upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
     used   \
    to be     \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C
                                                 *upstream head

 The two commits #2' and #3' in the above picture record the same
 changes your e-mail submission for #2 and #3 contained, but
 probably with the new sign-off line added by the upstream
 maintainer and definitely with different committer and ancestry
 information, they are different objects from #2 and #3 commits.

 You fetch from upstream, but not merge.

     $ git fetch upstream

 This leaves the updated upstream head in .git/FETCH_HEAD but
 does not touch your .git/HEAD or .git/refs/heads/master.
 You run "git rebase" now.

     $ git rebase FETCH_HEAD master

 Earlier, I said that rebase applies all the commits from your
 branch on top of the upstream head.  Well, I lied.  "git rebase"
 is a bit smarter than that and notices that #2 and #3 need not
 be applied, so it only applies #1.  The commit ancestry graph
 becomes something like this:

    where                     *your old "master" head
   upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
     used   \                      your new "master" head*
    to be     \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C --> #1'
                                                 *upstream
                                                 head

 Again, "git prune" would discard the disused commits #1-#3 and
 you continue on starting from the new "master" head, which is
 the #1' commit.

 -jc
	From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
	To: git@vger.kernel.org
	Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
	Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
	Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
	Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the
	public "pu" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
	the "master" branch, and how "rebase" works. Also discussed
	is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches
	upstream.
	Content-type: text/asciidoc

	How to rebase from an internal branch
	=====================================

	--------------------------------------
	Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

	> Dear diary, on Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:57:13AM CEST, I got a letter
	> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
	>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
	>>
	>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
	>> > branch to the real branches.
	>>
	> Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
	--------------------------------------

	Exactly my feeling. I was sort of waiting for Catalin to speak
	up. With its basing philosophical ancestry on quilt, this is
	the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.

	I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
	Git tools.

	I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
	wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
	placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit
	ancestry graph looked like this:

	*"pu" head
	master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3

	So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:

	$ git checkout master
	$ cd Documentation; ed git.txt ...
	$ cd ..; git add Documentation/*.txt
	$ git commit -s

	After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:

	*"pu" head
	master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
	\
	\---> master

	The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
	The new master commit holds my documentation updates.

	Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.

	This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
	Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
	at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
	branch being the "contributor" branch. Your work started at the
	tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
	progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
	other commits you do not have yet. And "git rebase" was written
	with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
	"pu". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
	eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
	all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
	operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
	your changes) "pu" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":

	$ git checkout pu
	$ git rebase master pu

	What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
	branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
	master branch, and forward port these changes.

	master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
	\ *"pu" head
	\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'

	The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
	committed to create #1' commit with the commit information (log,
	author and date) taken from commit #1. On top of that #2' and #3'
	commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.

	Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
	anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
	you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "pu", you
	can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.

	While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
	to do cherrypicking using only the core Git tools.

	Let's go back to the earlier picture, with different labels.

	You, as an individual developer, cloned upstream repository and
	made a couple of commits on top of it.

	*your "master" head
	upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3

	You would want changes #2 and #3 incorporated in the upstream,
	while you feel that #1 may need further improvements. So you
	prepare #2 and #3 for e-mail submission.

	$ git format-patch master^^ master

	This creates two files, 0001-XXXX.patch and 0002-XXXX.patch. Send
	them out "To: " your project maintainer and "Cc: " your mailing
	list. You could use contributed script git-send-email if
	your host has necessary perl modules for this, but your usual
	MUA would do as long as it does not corrupt whitespaces in the
	patch.

	Then you would wait, and you find out that the upstream picked
	up your changes, along with other changes.

	where *your "master" head
	upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
	used \
	to be \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C
	*upstream head

	The two commits #2' and #3' in the above picture record the same
	changes your e-mail submission for #2 and #3 contained, but
	probably with the new sign-off line added by the upstream
	maintainer and definitely with different committer and ancestry
	information, they are different objects from #2 and #3 commits.

	You fetch from upstream, but not merge.

	$ git fetch upstream

	This leaves the updated upstream head in .git/FETCH_HEAD but
	does not touch your .git/HEAD or .git/refs/heads/master.
	You run "git rebase" now.

	$ git rebase FETCH_HEAD master

	Earlier, I said that rebase applies all the commits from your
	branch on top of the upstream head. Well, I lied. "git rebase"
	is a bit smarter than that and notices that #2 and #3 need not
	be applied, so it only applies #1. The commit ancestry graph
	becomes something like this:

	where *your old "master" head
	upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
	used \ your new "master" head*
	to be \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C --> #1'
	*upstream
	head

	Again, "git prune" would discard the disused commits #1-#3 and
	you continue on starting from the new "master" head, which is
	the #1' commit.

	-jc