12

Is there an option to make git do rebase with --preserve-merges by default? I know about aliases but I dislike the idea to remember their names and also it makes everything harder to do on someone else's computer when you get used to them.

Stevoisiak
  • 23,794
  • 27
  • 122
  • 225
Denys Mikhalenko
  • 3,966
  • 2
  • 14
  • 18

2 Answers2

2

If you want to do this when you pull (say, develop), you can do this in git >= 1.7.9::

git config pull.rebase preserve

It will make all your pull actions to rebase the branch from remote into your local one and preserve merges.

It does not work if you want to rebase develop into another branch.

In git < 1.7.9:

git config --global branch.autosetuprebase always

See Make git pull --rebase preserve merge commits

Droom
  • 181
  • 1
  • 8
1

This kind of idiosyncratic need is one of the reasons shell functions exist.

git() {
    case $1 in
    rebase) shift; set -- rebase --preserve-merges "$@" ;;
    esac
    command git "$@"
}

As for

I know about aliases but I dislike the idea to remember their names and also it makes everything harder to do on someone else's computer when you get used to them.

I think a method for getting a command to behave differently on someone else's computer, but only when you use it, would have to be asked as a separate question for a proper response.

jthill
  • 55,082
  • 5
  • 77
  • 137
  • Sorry, but my question clearly states that I need a *git option* and not any other ways to achieve this functionality. That's why I mentioned aliases - to not receive answers like this one. – Denys Mikhalenko Mar 26 '17 at 13:40
  • You gave two reasons for that requirement. This satisfies the first (`git rebase` will work as you want, it doesn't introduce a new name). I suspect the second might be misworded, could you be clearer about how you expect git to behave differently for you personally when you're on "someone else's computer"? – jthill Mar 26 '17 at 18:14
  • I don't use git aliases (and explained why) and asked for a *git option*. I don't need workarounds, I only need a *git option* if it exists. – Denys Mikhalenko Mar 27 '17 at 01:49
  • 3
    It does not. It probably should, but I doubt either of us care enough about this feature to make a patch for `git`, so unfortunately your options are aliases (shell or git) or doing without entirely. – Daniel H Mar 29 '17 at 18:18