Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution(RoadClear)

From: Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 2, 2018, 18:14 UTC
Message-ID: <f26cdbe2-1bc3-02ff-7b99-12a6ebab5a70@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xrkAKB621Na3V-tE9cMtbnADX94FvTrJf26SkQYbXqMGw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Phillip,

On 02/03/2018 17:00, Jacob Keller wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> 
> > It is interesting to think what it means to faithfully rebase a '-s
> > ours' merge. In your example the rebase does not introduce any new
> > changes into branch B that it doesn't introduce to branch A. Had it
> > added a fixup to branch B1 for example or if the topology was more
> > complex so that B ended up with some other changes that the rebase did
> > not introduce into A, then M' would contain those extra changes whereas
> > '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' (once it supports it) would not.
> 
> Unless the method of merging was stored, I don't think we *can*
> correctly automate resolving of "-s ours" because all we store is the
> resulting content, and we don't know how or why the user generated it
> as such. I believe the "correct" solution in any case would be to take
> the content we DO know and then ask the user to stop for amendments.

 
I agree with Jake, and for the exact same reasons.

That said, I`d like to see what mentioned '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' does (or would do, once it supports it), would you have a pointer for me where to look at?

But if that`s something yet to come, might be it`s still open for discussion. I mean, even this topic started inside original `--recreate-merges` one[1], and hopefully it can still bring improvements there (sooner or later).

Thanks, Buga

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1516225925.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de/