Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution(RoadClear)
- From
- Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 8, 2018, 16:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <230856e0-7056-6273-cdd2-2e9969927271@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <2749ce78-8917-c821-6116-0c8d67b5e16e@gmail.com>
On 08/03/2018 16:16, Igor Djordjevic wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> > > Unless we reimplement the octopus merge (which works quite a bit > > differently from the "rebase merge commit" strategy, even if it is > > incremental, too), which has its own challenges: if there are merge > > conflicts before merging the last MERGE_HEAD, the octopus merge will exit > > with status 2, telling you "Should not be doing an octopus.". While we > > will want to keep merge conflict markers and continue with the "rebase the > > original merge commit" strategy. > > > > [...] > > The thing is, in my opinion, as long as we are _rebasing_, you can`t > pick any merge strategy, as it doesn`t really make much sense. If you > do want a specific strategy, than that`s _recreating_ a merge, and it > goes fine with what you already have for `--recreate-merges`. > > On merge rebasing, the underlying strategy we decide to use is just an > implementation detail, picking the one that works best (or the only > one that works, even), user should have nothing to do with it.
Just to add, if not already assumable, that I think we should stop and let user react on conflicts on each of the "rebase the original commit" strategy steps (rebase first parent, rebase second parent... merge parents).
I guess this stresses not using real "octopus merge" strategy even in case where we`re rebasing octopus merge commit even more (and aligns nicely with what you seem to expect already).