From: Tom Clarke <tom@u2i.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:41:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding rebase merge strategy
Message-ID: <550f9510710011441t1eb50352ofc8db77f79d794d5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6ker1lf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On 10/1/07, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> This would give a handier shortcut iff the rebase goes well, but
> the workflow after stopping would be entirely different from the
> normal "merge".  I am a bit worried about it giving confusion to
> the end users.

Thanks for the ample feedback, you raise a number of interesting
issues. I am wondering now if making rebase a merge strategy is really
a good idea. Rebasing is not merging, a difference that could perhaps
be overlooked in the no-conflict scenario, but as you point out, is
glaringly obvious as soon as you have conflicts.

I'm happy to try to address the issues you raised, but I wonder if we
would do better to look back at my original proposal which was to add
a --rebase option to git-pull. git-pull is the main place there I see
need for using a rebase instead of a merge, as anywhere where you
might use git-merge directly, if what you really want is a rebase, you
can just run git-rebase.

-Tom