On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 08:29:42AM -0400, Ben Knoble wrote: > > > Le 11 août 2025 à 04:46, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> a écrit : > > > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2025 at 01:14:17AM +0000, Julia Evans via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc > >> index 50c84f138212..c16ee37b46a7 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc > >> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.adoc > >> @@ -65,31 +65,31 @@ linkgit:git-config[1] for details) and the `--fork-point` option is > >> assumed. If you are currently not on any branch or if the current > >> branch does not have a configured upstream, the rebase will abort. > >> > >> -All changes made by commits in the current branch but that are not > >> -in `<upstream>` are saved to a temporary area. This is the same set > >> -of commits that would be shown by `git log <upstream>..HEAD`; or by > >> -`git log 'fork_point'..HEAD`, if `--fork-point` is active (see the > >> -description on `--fork-point` below); or by `git log HEAD`, if the > >> -`--root` option is specified. > >> - > >> -The current branch is reset to `<upstream>` or `<newbase>` if the > >> -`--onto` option was supplied. This has the exact same effect as > >> -`git reset --hard <upstream>` (or `<newbase>`). `ORIG_HEAD` is set > >> -to point at the tip of the branch before the reset. > >> +Here is a more detailed description of what `git rebase <upstream>` does: > >> + > >> +First, it makes a list of all commits in the current branch that are not in > >> +`<upstream>`. This is the same set of commits that would be shown by `git log > >> +<upstream>..HEAD`. You can use `--fork-point` or `--root` to change how this > >> +list of commits is constructed. > >> + > >> +Then it checks out `<upstream>` (or `<newbase>` if the `--onto` option was > >> +supplied) with the equivalent of `git switch --detach <upstream>`. > >> + > >> +Then it replays the commits, one by one, in order. This is similar to running > >> +`git cherry-pick <commit>` for each commit. See REBASING MERGES for how merges > >> +are handled. > >> + > >> +Finally, it updates your branch to point to the final commit with the equivalent > >> +of `git switch -C <branch>`. > > > > Would it make sense to convert this into a bulleted list to further > > highlight this multi-step process? > > Nit: ordered list, perhaps? Unless we don’t use those in our manuals > (away from documentation at the moment). Ah, I actually wanted to propose using an ordered list, not bulleted list. Thanks for correcting me. Patrick
