Re: rebase -p confusion in 1.6.1

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 15, 2009, 16:43 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901151739520.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090115144050.GD10045@leksak.fem-net>

Hi,

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Stephan Beyer wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > If it's about to be integrated we can do without the
> > present script...
> 
> I think it will take some time and some discussions on the list until it 
> will be integrated.  I remember, for example, Dscho, who has, since it 
> had first come up, always been opposed to the mark-reset / 
> mark-reset-merge scheme (in rebase -i -p, at least). Other users said 
> "Wow, this is much more flexible." ... and this is perhaps only one 
> thing that can lead to some bigger discussion.

Wow, much more flexible. Except that you should not need this kind of flexibility. If you need to do something complicated, it would be better to use "rebase -i -p" for the parts that do _not_ need to pick _other_ parents than are recorded in the commits.

And then you do an "edit" (or "pause" or whatever), and cherry-pick/merge _explicitely_ what you want.

Further, keep in mind that not only is that flexibility of dubitable value to the most users, it is also confusing, _and_ it adds code that is so rarely exercized that bugs can lurk in there for years... as you can experience right now.

So no, nothing has changed, I find that mark idea still horrible, horrible, horrible.

Ciao, Dscho