From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:39:05 GMT
Subject: Re: rebase -p loses amended changes
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:
> 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.