From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:36:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xrzxYSE0OyL8uyF+ErwfWFEgcqnHmaciwWkK-76sQ6ktw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <940d959d-151d-68dd-0f13-320ebad0d75b@gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Igor Djordjevic
<igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic 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...? :/
>
> p.s. Looks like Johannes already elaborated on this in the meantime,
> let`s see... (goes reading that other e-mail[1])
>
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1802272330290.56@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz/


In that case, the method won't work well at all, so I think we need a
different approach.

Thanks,
Jake