Re: Heads up: major rebase -i -p rework coming up
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 25, 2009, 16:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200901251722.53392.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901251509550.14855@racer>
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi, > > [please do not forget to Cc: me; today is a slow day, so I did not miss > your mail, but that is definitely not true on other days.]
This was spur of the moment idea, one that I wouldn't mind if you would miss it.
But now that you have something interesting to say, I'll re-added CC list for this thread.
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>>> Hmm. You're right, that is not really intuitive. How about >>>> >>>> merge (B) A # Merge... >>>> >>>> instead? >>> >>> Or even better: >>> >>> merge B parent A' # Merge... >> >> merge B with A' # Merge... > > No, that does not catch the meaning.
Errr... I didn't mean for 'with' to mean 'into'.
Show 16 quoted lines
> B is the _original_ merge commit. So it actually knows what parents it > has, but we want to give the user the freedom to change those parents. > > The first parent is easy: this will be HEAD at that stage. > > The other parents will be relatively easy: just replace A' by something > else. > > _However_ now that the merge commit B will be _redone_, we _still_ want to > be able to refer to it later in the rebase script. Therefore, rebase has > to know that we _redid_ B at this stage. > > Another idea: > > merge B Merge bla/blub > parent A' bla/blub
It would be good idea... even better if 'p' shortcut was not taken by 'pick'...
This is similar to your earlier idea:
merge 9383af1' was f39d50a Merge branch 'mh/unify-color' into next
# \ 9383af1 Revert previous two commitsOr perhaps:
merge A' D' into B Merge bla/blub
-- Jakub Narebski Poland