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

From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 28, 2018, 05:21 UTC
Message-ID: <871sh5ofil.fsf@javad.com>
In-Reply-To: <8829c395-fb84-2db0-9288-f7b28fa0d0d1@gmail.com>

Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On 28/02/2018 01:36, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> 
>> > > (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2
>> > >        |\                       |\
>> > >        | A1---A2---A3---U1      | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1'
>> > >        |             \          |
>> > >        |              M         |
>> > >        |             /          |
>> > >        \-B1---B2---B3---U2      \-B1'--B2'--B3'--U2'
>> > >
>> >
>> > Meh, I hope I`m rushing it now, but for example, if we had decided to
>> > drop commit A2 during an interactive rebase (so losing A2' from
>> > diagram above), wouldn`t U2' still introduce those changes back, once
>> > U1' and U2' are merged, being incorrect/unwanted behavior...? :/
>> 
>> In that case, the method won't work well at all, so I think we need a
>> different approach.
>> 
>
> Hmm, still rushing it, but what about adding an additional step, 
> something like this:

I think it's unneeded, as it should work fine without it, see another reply.

-- Sergey