branch switcher does not indicate rebase context
See original GitHub issueWhen you are in the middle of rebase conflicts in #6698, you can dismiss the dialog and see this context in the header:
We don’t have this problem with merge conflicts because you merge another branch into your current branch (so Git doesn’t end up with a detached HEAD), and I’d like to change the text here to something more friendly (“rebasing”, with the target branch name and some sort of progress summary to see how far through?).
There’s no Octicon available to represent rebase
but maybe something visual here might help to differentiate it from detached HEAD.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:5 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
rebase in progress. Cannot commit. How to proceed or stop ...
Rebase doesn't happen in the background. "rebase in progress" means that you started a rebase, and the rebase got interrupted because of conflict....
Read more >git-rebase Documentation - Git
If <branch> is specified, git rebase will perform an automatic git switch <branch> before doing anything else. Otherwise it remains on the current...
Read more >git rebase [base] [new base] | Fig - Fig.io
--quit, Abort the rebase operation but HEAD is not reset back to the original branch. The index and working tree are also left...
Read more >Introduction to Git rebase and force-push - GitLab Docs
This guide helps you to get started with rebasing, force-pushing, and fixing merge conflicts locally. Before diving into this document, make sure you...
Read more >Naming of "rebase current changes onto [branch]" context ...
Not really. If you really understand what rebasing is doing, "onto" makes perfect sense. It's important to note that "branches" in Git are...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
I’m pretty sure I would expect to see this. I don’t think I’d expect to see progress in that area, it should just reflect the branch information.
Seems like it’d be possible or potentially more technically correct to do something like this? But I think I find this more confusing. 🤔
All makes sense to me!