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

From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 28, 2018, 05:54 UTC
Message-ID: <87o9k9mzg9.fsf@javad.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xpNhEF0=QoR71v5Y=nc39OL4XKX36xXYjP1Kn_+DUCf_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your
>>> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method.
>>
>> Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial
>> merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git
>> calls "trivial merge".  The phrase has an established meaning in Git
>> and your attempt to abuse it to mean something entirely different is
>> adding unnecessary hindrance for other people to understand what you
>> want to perform.
>
> Agreed, I think we need better terminology here, the current words for
> (TM) are definitely *not* trivial merges. Same for "angel merge", I
> don't think that term really works well either.

Agreed.

How do we call a merge that introduces no differences on either side of the merge then? Is there some English for even more trivial than what Git calls "trivial merge"?

-- Sergey