Re: RFC: rebase inconsistency in 2.18 -- course of action?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2018, 17:44 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4li9cj52.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGxaroePB6aKWAkZeADLB7VE3y1CPy2RyNwpn=+C01g3A@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> In short, while interactive-based and merge-based rebases handle
> directory rename detection fine, am-based rebases do not.  This
> inconsistency may frustrate or surprise users.

FWIW, I actually do not quite think it is universally a good idea to infer that I would have added the path X/F I added to my branch at Y/F instead if I were on vacation while somebody else first moved other paths X/A, X/B, etc. to Y/A, Y/B, etc., and I would even imagine that I would be frustrated if my X/F, which the somebody else wasn't even aware of, were moved to Y/F without even telling me. So in that sense, doing such extra and unasked-for "moves" during a rebase may be a bug, not a feature.

In any case, I think I'll have to delay -rc2 by a few days to catch up, so I won't be looking at any topic (including this one) that is not about 2.18-rc regressions for a few days. Please do not get upset if people with RFC patches do not hear from me until the final.

Thanks.