Hi Dscho, On 12/03/2018 11:20, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > [...] and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the > > > changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about). > > > > Hmm, not following here, which ambiguities are we talking about? > > U1' vs U2' of course. Those are two things that can be different, even if > they ideally would have identical trees. > > Phillip's strategy does not leave that room for ambiguity.
Ehm, in Sergey`s approach, this is not an issue, but a feature :) If U1' != U2', it just means a more complex rebase happened, but it doesn`t compromise the result (rebased merge) in any way. On the other hand, if U1' == U2', we can be pretty sure that merge rebasing went as clean as possible. That`s the idea, at least. Regards, Buga
