Re: rebase -p loses amended changes
- From
Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 31, 2012, 09:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAH3AnrpasFU2bLEZsAXRQu4U+=R_YyW+-yRXDfzy2JQpqf9dNw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87fwcpun95.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> wrote: >> >> I wonder if there are any really good justifications for changing the >> content, as distinct from the comments of a merge during an amendment? > > Semantic conflicts do not necessarily show up as > conflicts-to-be-resolved. The canonical example is when you change the > signature of a function on one side of the merge, and introduce new > callers on the other side. The merge must then patch all new callers > too.
Fair enough - I was thinking that you could these with a commit after the merge, but I can see that's not the right thing to do, from a correctness point of view.
jon.