From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:56:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] Teach rebase interactive the mark command
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0804301253520.2136@eeepc-johanness>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6cn1yzk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> But instead you are thinking of letting me just say "X", and somehow 
> >> make the machinery guess by noticing "Ah, original X is a merge between 
> >> original A and B, and we have a merge between rewritten A and rewritten 
> >> B, so we will treat that merge as rewritten "X"?
> >> 
> >> I actually was hoping we could avoid that, which feels messy.
> > ...
> > But this got me thinking, and I think that to leave out the first parent 
> > was another mistake I made, so I really would like to have this syntax:
> >
> > 	merge <orig-commit> <parent1> <parent2>... <message>
> >
> > This would allow to change the parents in the interactive rebase, and if 
> > <parent1> is not the current commit at that point, it would implicitly 
> > call "reset".
> >
> > What appeals to me is the simplicity of this approach: you refer to the 
> > commits by calling them by their (original) name.
> 
> Ok, that clears my confusion, but it raises another issue.
> 
> In the context of "rebase -i", this may not be a problem, but by forcing
> us to name commits always with original commits, we cannot build (instead
> of rebuild) a history that does not yet exist using the sequencer
> machinery, can we?

The idea I hinted at was to refer to them by another name than the short 
name.  Then we can use the sequencer machinery.

I still maintain that it is such a rare need (even if you are a power user 
of it) that it makes sense to cater for other, simpler uses.

Ciao,
Dscho