Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
- From
- Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 11, 2018, 22:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <d18a6e73-ce6f-b4aa-8ead-7aaabddf454d@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1803111324390.20700@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
Hi Dscho,
I`m yet to read (and reason about) your whole (very informative) reply, but I just wanted to address this part first, as it might be a clear end-game situation already, due to a mutual agreement, all the rest being purely academic, interesting, but not any more (that) important to discuss.
On 11/03/2018 16:40, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> > > For myself, I do actually favor Sergey`s approach in general, but > > _implemented_ through what Phillip described (or a mixture of both, to > > be precise). But, let me explain... :) > > So as you explained later in this sub-thread, Sergey's approach is > essentially the same as Phillip's. > > I still do not understand Sergey's approach on a fundamental level. I > mean, I can follow his instructions how to implement his algorithm, but it > is as if I had a blindfold on and somebody guided me through a maze: I > understand *what* I am supposed to do, but I have no clue *why*. > > And admittedly, I got very frustrated when a document was thrown my way > that is too long to read in one sitting, and all of my attempts at getting > clear and comprehensible answers to specific questions were met with "go > and read that document, I am sure you will understand then". > > For something as fundamental to my daily workflow as an interactive rebase > (*especially* when trying to maintain the branch topology), this is no > good at all. > > Since you already confirmed that there is essentially no difference > between the two approaches, I will simply go with the one I understand, in > particular I understand *why* it works. > > But let's read on, maybe I will change my mind based on your explanations > (which do answer my questions, thank you so much for that)...
No problem, I learned much myself trying to write those explanations in the first place, and I still need to read on yet myself, seeing how well my explanations actually fared :) Thank you for still holding on, though.
But I just wanted to point out that you can really just go with what Phillip described if you find that easier to reason about (and/or implement), there`s even no need for mind changing, as essentially, and in my opinion, it seems to be just a bit different implementation of the same concept (but not requiring temporary commits).
That said, *if* we decide we like temporary commit U1' == U2' consistency check (especially for non-interactive rebase, maybe), we can produce these after the fact for the sake of the check only.
I will come with a follow-up, but all the rest might be less important.
Regards, Buga