[PATCH v5 11/20] git-rebase.txt: add more details about behavioral differences of backends

["Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>]

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index e1c6f918013..6e2569cd8a7 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ with `--keep-base` in order to drop those commits from your branch.
 
 --ignore-whitespace::
 --whitespace=<option>::
-	These flag are passed to the 'git apply' program
+	These flags are passed to the 'git apply' program
 	(see linkgit:git-apply[1]) that applies the patch.
 +
 See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
@@ -563,8 +563,8 @@ The following options:
 
  * --committer-date-is-author-date
  * --ignore-date
- * --whitespace
  * --ignore-whitespace
+ * --whitespace
  * -C
 
 are incompatible with the following options:
@@ -615,9 +615,84 @@ handling commits that become empty.
 Directory rename detection
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-Directory rename heuristics are enabled in the merge and interactive
-backends.  Due to the lack of accurate tree information, directory
-rename detection is disabled in the am backend.
+Due to the lack of accurate tree information (arising from
+constructing fake ancestors with the limited information available in
+patches), directory rename detection is disabled in the am backend.
+Disabled directory rename detection means that if one side of history
+renames a directory and the other adds new files to the old directory,
+then the new files will be left behind in the old directory without
+any warning at the time of rebasing that you may want to move these
+files into the new directory.
+
+Directory rename detection works with the merge and interactive
+backends to provide you warnings in such cases.
+
+Context
+~~~~~~~
+
+The am backend works by creating a sequence of patches (by calling
+`format-patch` internally), and then applying the patches in sequence
+(calling `am` internally).  Patches are composed of multiple hunks,
+each with line numbers, a context region, and the actual changes.  The
+line numbers have to be taken with some fuzz, since the other side
+will likely have inserted or deleted lines earlier in the file.  The
+context region is meant to help find how to adjust the line numbers in
+order to apply the changes to the right lines.  However, if multiple
+areas of the code have the same surrounding lines of context, the
+wrong one can be picked.  There are real-world cases where this has
+caused commits to be reapplied incorrectly with no conflicts reported.
+Setting diff.context to a larger value may prevent such types of
+problems, but increases the chance of spurious conflicts (since it
+will require more lines of matching context to apply).
+
+The interactive backend works with a full copy of each relevant file,
+insulating it from these types of problems.
+
+Labelling of conflicts markers
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+When there are content conflicts, the merge machinery tries to
+annotate each side's conflict markers with the commits where the
+content came from.  Since the am backend drops the original
+information about the rebased commits and their parents (and instead
+generates new fake commits based off limited information in the
+generated patches), those commits cannot be identified; instead it has
+to fall back to a commit summary.  Also, when merge.conflictStyle is
+set to diff3, the am backend will use "constructed merge base" to
+label the content from the merge base, and thus provide no information
+about the merge base commit whatsoever.
+
+The interactive backend works with the full commits on both sides of
+history and thus has no such limitations.
+
+Hooks
+~~~~~
+
+The am backend has not traditionally called the post-commit hook,
+while the merge/interactive backend has.  However, this was by
+accident of implementation rather than by design.  Both backends
+should have the same behavior, though it is not clear which one is
+correct.
+
+Miscellaneous differences
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+There are a few more behavioral differences that most folks would
+probably consider inconsequential but which are mentioned for
+completeness:
+
+* Reflog: The two backends will use different wording when describing
+  the changes made in the reflog, though both will make use of the
+  word "rebase".
+
+* Progress, informational, and error messages: The two backends
+  provide slightly different progress and informational messages.
+  Also, the am backend writes error messages (such as "Your files
+  would be overwritten...") to stdout, while the interactive backend
+  writes them to stderr.
+
+* State directories: The two backends keep their state in different
+  directories under .git/
 
 include::merge-strategies.txt[]
 
-- 
gitgitgadget