From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:25:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rebase: refuse to rebase with -s ours
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0911162213590.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vpr7ip7ji.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi,

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Thomas Rast wrote:
> >
> >> Using the "ours" strategy with rebase just discards all changes, 
> >> turning <branch> into <upstream> (or <newbase> if given).  This is 
> >> unlikely to be what the user wants, so simply refuse to do it.
> 
> > Besides, I find it rather arbitrary that the "ours" strategy is 
> > refused, but none of the user-provided merge strategies.  IOW 
> > disallowing "ours" may very well foster unreasonable expectations.
> 
> I cannot read this quite clearly.

I meant the following: if "rebase -s ours" refuses to run, but my boss has 
written this cunning merge strategy "superduper" which is equally unlikely 
to yield a sensible result, "rebase -s superduper" should still refuse to 
run, no?

Now, this scenario might be too rare to take care of, but maybe it shows 
that we have a design flaw here?

Ciao,
Dscho

P.S.: Please note that I do not make a case against Thomas' patch series.  
As gitzilla once said "I cannot provide alternative patches, so that's 
that".