Re: [PATCH 1/2] git-subtree: Bail out if we find output from Rust rewrite [and 1 more messages]

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Jul 11, 2026, 19:58 UTC
Message-ID: <27218.41052.331367.161844@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CAPMEjVsj-5X9VyUtGM1JipXj6g_0JrC5gk37s178G02A@mail.gmail.com>

D. Ben Knoble writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/2] git-subtree: Bail out if we find output from Rust rewrite [and 1 more messages]"):

> Just to make sure I understand you (I regularly use -X subtree with
> one project): the Rust rewrite won't support -X subtree merges, but we
> don't intend to discourage folks from using -X subtree merges in toto,
> right? Merely not support a mix of the 2?

Precisely so.

I think you may find my git-subtree rewrite superior in ergonomics to git merge -X subtree so you might want to switch to it, when it exists and supports that transition.

I haven't yet thought about how that transition ought to go but I think it might look like what I'm calling an "unmarked subtree merge~. I've made a TODO note in my working branch to remind myself to consider this situation.

Regards, Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.