Hi Phillip, On 02/03/2018 17:00, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > It is interesting to think what it means to faithfully rebase a '-s > > ours' merge. In your example the rebase does not introduce any new > > changes into branch B that it doesn't introduce to branch A. Had it > > added a fixup to branch B1 for example or if the topology was more > > complex so that B ended up with some other changes that the rebase did > > not introduce into A, then M' would contain those extra changes whereas > > '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' (once it supports it) would not. > > Unless the method of merging was stored, I don't think we *can* > correctly automate resolving of "-s ours" because all we store is the > resulting content, and we don't know how or why the user generated it > as such. I believe the "correct" solution in any case would be to take > the content we DO know and then ask the user to stop for amendments. I agree with Jake, and for the exact same reasons.
That said, I`d like to see what mentioned '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' does (or would do, once it supports it), would you have a pointer for me where to look at? But if that`s something yet to come, might be it`s still open for discussion. I mean, even this topic started inside original `--recreate-merges` one[1], and hopefully it can still bring improvements there (sooner or later). Thanks, Buga [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1516225925.git.johannes.schinde...@gmx.de/
