This message was deleted.

As

rebase

is not a

gt

command it is given through to

git

, so this should be supported already, shouldn't it? It will not restack the upstack, but that's why

upstack onto

should be used if you have an upstack.

yeah, I was imagining that it wouldn't a pure pass through, so

gt

could handle restacking. It would augment a command that people might already know.

I guess that would majorly confuse though if you have such hibernate commands. I personally even prefer to use

git

itself for

git

commands.

The docs for graphite said somewhere something like "We want you to think of gt as a complete replacement for the git cli" and that also preceded an explanation that the tool will pass through to git for some commands. I suppose since I'm already quite comfortable with the existing git cli I suppose I would feel better about thinking of

gt

as a replacement tool if I could generally do operations like

gt rebase -i

or

gt rebase --onto

the way that I'm used to except that

gt

would shim those commands to make sure that it can restack branches as needed. As it is you have a new frontend

gt

tool where you have to be cautious to consider that some commands might be direct pass throughs that let you shoot yourself in the foot and it also means that equivalent functionality needs to be placed under a completely different sub command which might not feel as intuitive as the original command. (e.g. need to remember

gt branch edit

is a replacement for

gt rebase -i

and

gt upstack onto

is a replacement for

gt rebase --onto

)

I totally get you. I just don't agree. 🙂 I like that

gt

does Graphite stuff and

git

does plain Git stuff where it does exaclty what I want and what I'm used to and not suddenly magic other things. I personally even don't like the push-through of Git commands. It's similar to

hub

which was also meant as

git

replacement with additional logic vs. the new and official

gh

which does not proxy

git

but is just a standalone tool for the GitHub stuff. If I would use the

git

push-through - besides being slower than just using

git

even if just slightly - then I would also always have to keep in mind which Git commands are decorated by Graphite and how and then decide on each command whether I want the plain Git behavior or the decorated one. But that is of course just my personal opinion. 🙂

I personally do not like the git pass through, but also had a hard time finding

upstack onto

multiple times this week. For some reason I was looking in

gt stack

instead of upstack

I was searching for

--onto

in

upstack restack

once 😄

I just don't agree

fwiw I also don't really think that it's the ideal approach either (personally I'd rather have a completely separate cli without passthrough) but it seems like

gt

should either go all in or all out here. Either it augments the standard

git

command line interface and I think it would be good in that case that it would shim standard commands like

git rebase -i

or

git rebase --onto

or else it should be completely standalone, and then it has the freedom to use subcommands that do map back to the standard command line interface in a perhaps more intuitive way.

Also debatable, I regularly type

git cc

when I really wanted to do

gt cc

😄

yeah I was struggling to fight my motor memory for typing

git

when playing with

gt

earlier 🙂