Re: Bring together merge and rebase

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Jan 6, 2018, 21:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20180106213845.GD2404@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180106172919.GA17272@Carl-MBP.ecbaldwin.net>

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 10:29:21AM -0700, Carl Baldwin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > When n==m==1, "amended" pointer from X1 to A1 may allow you to
> > answer "Is this the first attempt?  If this is refined, what did the
> > earlier one look like?" when given X1, but you would also want to
> > answer a related question "This was a good start, but did the effort
> > result in a refined patch, and if so what is it?" when given A1, and
> > "amended" pointer won't help at all.  Needless to say, the "pointer"
> > approach breaks down when !(n==m==1).
> 
> It doesn't break down. It merely presents more sophisticated situations
> that may be more work for the tool to help out with. This is where I
> think a prototype will help see these situations and develop the tool to
> manage them.

That's another way of saying "break down".

And if the goal is a prototype, may I gently suggest that the way forward is trailers in the commit body, ala:

	Change-Id: I0b793feac9664bcc8935d8ec04ca16d5

or

	Upstream-4.15-SHA1: 73875fc2b3934e45b4b9a94eb57ca8cd

Making changes in the commit header is complex, and has all *sorts* of forward and backwards compatibility challenges, especially when it's not clear what the proper data model should be.

Cheers,

						 -Ted