From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:02:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/8] [DO NOT APPLY, but squash?] git-rebase--interactive: clarify arguments
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1801291802400.35@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xoO4twSgYVNJ4WaTj80WHS_ViEOBOEVST1nX9UzRA4JxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >> Good idea! I would rather do it as an introductory patch (that only
> >> converts the existing list).
> >>
> >> As to `merge`: it is a bit more complicated ;-)
> >>
> >>       m, merge <original-merge-commit> ( <label> | "<label>..." ) [<oneline>]
> >>               create a merge commit using the original merge commit's
> >>               message (or the oneline, if "-" is given). Use a quoted
> >>               list of commits to be merged for octopus merges.
> >
> > Is it just the message that is being reused?
> >
> > Aren't the trees of the original commit and its parents participate
> > in creating the tree of the recreated merge?  One way to preserve an
> > originally evil merge is to notice how it was made by taking the
> > difference between the result of mechanical merge of original merge
> > parents and the original merge result, and carry it forward when
> > recreating the merge across new parents.  Just being curious.
> >
> 
> It looks like currently that only the commit is kept, with no attempt
> to recreate evil merges.

Yep. I even documented that somewhere ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho