Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

From: Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2018, 00:29 UTC
Message-ID: <45d05a89-b10e-5035-7c5b-2981dba27d42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1803121056400.20700@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>

Hi Dscho,

On 12/03/2018 11:20, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 
> > > [...] and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the
> > > changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about).
> >
> > Hmm, not following here, which ambiguities are we talking about?
> 
> U1' vs U2' of course. Those are two things that can be different, even if
> they ideally would have identical trees.
> 
> Phillip's strategy does not leave that room for ambiguity.

Ehm, in Sergey`s approach, this is not an issue, but a feature :)

If U1' != U2', it just means a more complex rebase happened, but it doesn`t compromise the result (rebased merge) in any way.

On the other hand, if U1' == U2', we can be pretty sure that merge rebasing went as clean as possible.

That`s the idea, at least.

Regards, Buga