From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:44:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rebase: introduce the --recreate-merges option
Message-ID: <87bmgt8k2k.fsf@javad.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1802122118420.35@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>

Hi Johannes,

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>
>> Thanks for explanations, and could you please answer this one:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> I also have trouble making sense of "Recreate merge commits instead of
>> >> flattening the history by replaying merges." Is it "<Recreate merge
>> >> commits by replaying merges> instead of <flattening the history>" or is it
>> >> rather "<Recreate merge commits> instead of <flattening the history by
>> >> replaying merges>?
>
> I thought I had answered that one.

No, not really, but now you did, please see below.

>
> Flattening the history is what happens in regular rebase (i.e. without
> --recreate-merges and without --preserve-merges).
>
> The idea to recreate merges is of course to *not* flatten the history.

Sure. Never supposed it is.

> Maybe there should have been a comma after "history" to clarify what the
> sentence means.

That's the actual answer to my question, but it in turn raises another
one: why did you change wording of --preserve-merges description for
this new option?

> The wording is poor either way, but you are also not a native speaker so
> we have to rely on, say, Eric to help us out here.

Likely, but why didn't you keep original wording from --preserve-merges?
Do you feel it's somehow poor either?

Anyway, please also refer to wording suggestion in the another (lengthy)
answer in this thread.

-- Sergey