From: Jakub Narebski Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:22:52 GMT Subject: Re: Heads up: major rebase -i -p rework coming up Message-ID: <200901251722.53392.jnareb@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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. > 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'. > 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 commits Or perhaps: merge A' D' into B Merge bla/blub -- Jakub Narebski Poland