Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: >> > >> >> Johannes Schindelin

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> > > >> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> > > >>

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> > >> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: >> > >> >> Johannes Schindelin

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > [...] > > Yes, having more steps would mean more power/options to the user, but > more complexity to explain to and guide him through as well, not really > sure where the line should be drawn - for the first time, at least. If you want to

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Junio, On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > If so, what tooling do you have to identify quickly what to > > cherry-pick, given merge conflicts? > > It exactly is the issue I've been trying to find ideal solution for >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> > >> > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 16/03/2018 08:31, Sergey Organov wrote: >> >> > > As I said, putting myself on the user side, I'd prefer entirely >> > > separate first step of the algorithm, exactly as written, with >> > > its own conflict

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 16/03/2018 08:31, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > As I said, putting myself on the user side, I'd prefer entirely > > > separate first step of the algorithm, exactly as written, with > > > its own conflict resolution, all running entirely the same way as > > > it does with non-merge

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, [...] >> As I said, putting myself on the user side, I'd prefer entirely separate >> first step of the algorithm, exactly as written, with its own conflict >> resolution, all running entirely the same way as it does

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 15/03/2018 08:52, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > 2. The U1' == U2' consistency check in RFC that I still think is worth > > > to be implemented. > > > > At the moment, I think we`d appreciate test cases where it actually > > proves useful, as the general consensus seems to be

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 14/03/2018 08:21, Sergey Organov wrote: >> >> There are still 2 issues about the implementation that need to be >> discussed though: >> >> 1. Still inverted order of the second merge compared to RFC. >> >> It'd

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 14/03/2018 08:21, Sergey Organov wrote: > > There are still 2 issues about the implementation that need to be > discussed though: > > 1. Still inverted order of the second merge compared to RFC. > > It'd be simple to "fix" again, except I'm not sure it'd be better, and > as there

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 13/03/2018 17:10, Sergey Organov wrote: >> >> > Hi Sergey, I've been following this discussion from the sidelines, >> > though I haven't had time to study all the posts in this thread in >> > detail. I wonder if

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 13/03/2018 17:10, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > Hi Sergey, I've been following this discussion from the sidelines, > > though I haven't had time to study all the posts in this thread in > > detail. I wonder if it would be helpful to think of rebasing a merge as > > merging the

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Johannes Schindelin writes: > So essentially, what your cherry-pick'able commits are is a way to store > what rerere would have stored (i.e. the set of merge conflicts together > with their resolution)? If rerere would have stored, I wouldn't have separate band-aid

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Phillip, Phillip Wood writes: [...] > Hi Sergey, I've been following this discussion from the sidelines, > though I haven't had time to study all the posts in this thread in > detail. I wonder if it would be helpful to think of rebasing a merge as > merging the

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on having the >> > original parent commits --

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Junio, On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> Non-textual semantic conflicts are made (in the best case just once) > >> as a separate commit on top of mechanical auto-merge whose focus is > >> predictability (rather than

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 06/03/2018 12:45, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > The only thing I wonder of here is how would we check if the > > > "rebased" merge M' was "clean", or should we stop for user amendment? > > > With that other approach Sergey described, we have U1'==U2' to test with. > > > > I think (though I

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 06/03/18 18:12, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >>> >>> On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: > Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal > had a mistake

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Non-textual semantic conflicts are made (in the best case just once) >> as a separate commit on top of mechanical auto-merge whose focus is >> predictability (rather than cleverness) done by Git, and then that >> separate commit is kept

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Junio, On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood writes: > > > I wonder if just having a predicable result rather than forcing the > > rebase to stop if the user just squashes a fixup commit into a topic > > branch that is the parent of a merge

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on having the > > original parent commits -- not *require* that consistency check? > > I don't understand what you mean,

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: >> > >> >> On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> > >> >> >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 05/03/2018 18:29, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > By the way, is there documentation for `git merge-recursive` > > > anywhere, besides the code itself...? :$ > > > > I am not aware of any. The commit message adding the command is

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > >> On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> > > >> > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Thinking

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Phillip, > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> > >> > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, On 05/03/2018 18:29, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > By the way, is there documentation for `git merge-recursive` > > anywhere, besides the code itself...? :$ > > I am not aware of any. The commit message adding the command is not very > illuminating

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Phillip, On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> > >>> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal > >>> had a mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Phillip Wood writes: > I wonder if just having a predicable result rather than forcing the > rebase to stop if the user just squashes a fixup commit into a topic > branch that is the parent of a merge might be more convenient in practice. Unless I am misunderstanding

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Phillip, Phillip Wood writes: > On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> Hi Phillip, [...] >> >> The only thing I wonder of here is how would we check if the >> "rebased" merge M' was "clean", or should we stop for user amendment? >> With that other

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 05/03/18 05:00, Sergey Organov wrote: > Hi Plillip and Igor, > > Igor Djordjevic writes: >> Hi Phillip, >> >> On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >>> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal had a mistake in the final merge

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >> >>> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal had a >>> mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is a way to >>> fix it, and I want to try to figure

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Phillip, On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 01/03/18 05:39, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > Igor Djordjevic writes: > > > >> On 28/02/2018 06:19, Sergey Organov wrote: > >>> > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > >|\

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > By the way, is there documentation for `git merge-recursive` > anywhere, besides the code itself...? :$ I am not aware of any. The commit message adding the command is not very illuminating

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Plillip and Igor, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Phillip, > > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >> >> > Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal had a >> > mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is a way to >> >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Phillip, On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal had a > > mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is a way to > > fix it, and I want to try to figure what exactly was wrong in the > > original

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 02/03/2018 06:40, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > So... In comparison to original merge commit M, rebased merge commit > > M' is expected to: > > > > - Add X9, from updated "master" > > - Have A1 changed to A12, due to A12 commit amendment > > - Keep A2, rebased as A2' > > -

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 01/03/18 05:39, Sergey Organov wrote: > > Hi Igor, > > Igor Djordjevic writes: > >> Hi Sergey, >> >> On 28/02/2018 06:19, Sergey Organov wrote: >>> > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >|\ |\ >| A1---A2---A3---U1

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Igor, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 01/03/2018 06:39, Sergey Organov wrote: [...] >> >> Yeah, I now see it myself. I'm sorry for being lazy and not inspecting >> this more carefully in the first place. > > No problem, that`s why we`re discussing

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 01/03/2018 06:39, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > >|\ |\ > > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > >| \ | > > >| M | > > >|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Igor, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 28/02/2018 06:19, Sergey Organov wrote: >> >> > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >> > >|\ |\ >> > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >> > >|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Igor Djordjevic writes: [...] >> > Hmm, still rushing it, but what about adding an additional step, >> > something like this: >> >> I think it's unneeded, as it should work fine without it, see another >> reply. > > Unfortunately, I have a broken test case saying

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Igor, Igor Djordjevic writes: > On 28/02/2018 21:25, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> But U1' and U2' are really to be expected to stay the same in >> non-interactive rebase case only... > > Just to rephrase to "could be expected" here, meaning still not >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 28/02/2018 21:25, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > But U1' and U2' are really to be expected to stay the same in > non-interactive rebase case only... Just to rephrase to "could be expected" here, meaning still not necessarily in this case, either - I`ve just witnessed non-interactive rebase

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 07:14, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > Would additional step as suggested in [1] (using R1 and R2 to "catch" > > > interactive rebase additions/amendments/drops, on top of U1' and > > > U2'), make more sense (or provide an additional clue, at least)? > > > > > > [1] >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 06:19, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > >|\ |\ > > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > >| \ | > > >| M | > > >|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 06:44, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > Here`s our starting position: > > > > > > (0) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 (master) > > >|\ > > >| A1---A2---A3 > > >| \ > > >| M (topic) > > >| / > > >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 06:21, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > > > >|\ |\ > > > > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > > > >| \ | > > > > >| M |

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Igor Djordjevic writes: > On 28/02/2018 03:12, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> Would additional step as suggested in [1] (using R1 and R2 to "catch" >> interactive rebase additions/amendments/drops, on top of U1' and >> U2'), make more sense (or provide an additional

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Jacob Keller writes: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Sergey Organov writes: >> >>> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your >>> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM)

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Buga, > > thank you for making this a lot more understandable to this thick > developer. > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> On 27/02/2018 19:55, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> > >> > It would be more along

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Junio C Hamano writes: > Igor Djordjevic writes: > >> On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >>> >>> (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >>>|\ |\ >>>| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >>>

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Igor Djordjevic writes: > On 28/02/2018 01:36, Jacob Keller wrote: >> >> > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >> > >|\ |\ >> > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >> > >| \ | >> > >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Igor Djordjevic writes: > On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >>|\ |\ >>| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >>| \ | >>|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Junio C Hamano writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your >> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method. > > Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial > merge",

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 28/02/2018 03:12, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > Would additional step as suggested in [1] (using R1 and R2 to "catch" > interactive rebase additions/amendments/drops, on top of U1' and > U2'), make more sense (or provide an additional clue, at least)? > > [1] >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Junio, On 28/02/2018 01:10, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > >|\ |\ > > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > >| \ | > > >| M | > > >|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, On 28/02/2018 00:27, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > thank you for making this a lot more understandable to this thick > developer. Hehe, no problem, it primarily served fighting my own thickness ;) > > Finally, we drop temporary commits, and record rebased commits A3' > > and B3'

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 28/02/2018 02:33, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > This seems to be working inside my (too trivial?) test case, for > interactive adding, dropping, and amending of rebased commits, > resulting "rebased" merge containing all the added/modified/dropped > changes, plus the original merge amendment,

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 28/02/2018 01:36, Jacob Keller wrote: > > > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > >|\ |\ > > >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > >| \ | > > >| M | > > >| /

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >>|\ |\ >>| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >>| \

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your >> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method. > > Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Jake, > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >>

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Igor Djordjevic writes: > On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >>|\ |\ >>| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >>| \ | >>|

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >|\ |\ >| A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >| \ | >| M | >| / | >

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, thank you for making this a lot more understandable to this thick developer. On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 27/02/2018 19:55, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > > It would be more along the lines of "(1) rebase old merge commit parents, > > (2) generate separate diff

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 27/02/2018 19:55, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > It would be more along the lines of "(1) rebase old merge commit parents, > (2) generate separate diff between old merge commit and each of its > parents, (3) apply each diff to their corresponding newly rebased > parent respectively (as a

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Dscho, On 27/02/2018 17:21, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Do you have any way to describe the idea in a simple, 3-5 lines long > paragraph? > > So far, I just know that it is some sort of confusing criss-cross > cherry-picking and merging and stuff, but nothing in those steps > shouts out

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Sergey Organov writes: > You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your > teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method. Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Jake, On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > >> I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the > >> only "bad

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Buga, > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the >> only "bad feeling" I had with rebasing merges - being afraid of silently >> losing

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Buga, > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the >> only "bad feeling" I had with rebasing merges - being afraid of

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Buga, > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the >> only "bad feeling" I had with rebasing merges - being afraid of silently >> losing

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the > only "bad feeling" I had with rebasing merges - being afraid of silently > losing amendments by actually trying to "replay" the merge (where > additional and possibly

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Igor, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Sergey, > [...] > > Even though this behavior is known and documented, it still left some > to be desired. > > Might be I`m missing something, but so far I like how described > approach just "feels right" (to me, for now),

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On 16/02/2018 14:08, Sergey Organov wrote: > > By accepting the challenges raised in recent discussion of advanced > support for history rebasing and editing in Git, I hopefully figured out > a clean and elegant method of rebasing merges that I think is "The Right > Way (TM)" to

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Jake, Jacob Keller writes: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Sergey Organov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> By accepting the challenges raised in recent discussion of advanced >> support for history rebasing and editing in Git, I hopefully figured out >> a

Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Sergey Organov wrote: > Hi, > > By accepting the challenges raised in recent discussion of advanced > support for history rebasing and editing in Git, I hopefully figured out > a clean and elegant method of rebasing merges that I think is "The

[RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi, By accepting the challenges raised in recent discussion of advanced support for history rebasing and editing in Git, I hopefully figured out a clean and elegant method of rebasing merges that I think is "The Right Way (TM)" to perform this so far troublesome operation. ["(TM)" here has second