Re: RFC: Patch editing

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Feb 26, 2007, 19:51 UTC
Message-ID: <7vveholmu2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070226185655.GB2108@spearce.org>

"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Yea - this is a lot like rebase.  I was also thinking that the -m
> (merge mode) in rebase probably should be the only option offered.
> I don't see why rebase should format-patch|am when we have the
> whole commit available and merge-recursive does an excellent job
> on tree level merges.

One reason is that it just matches the practice to the mental model. Rebasing is like sending yourself a patch series and applying with 'am' on top of a known commit afresh, which is exactly what the command without -m does.

The other historical reason is that reconstructing (with -3) the only part of the tree that matters in the 3-way merge and running the merge was a lot faster with the merge tool we had, than a full 3-way merge.