Re: [PATCH] docs: Clarify what git-rebase's "--preserve-merges" does

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2015, 19:58 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqtwx2w937.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHGBnuP0mRYWyJiLvWHuqsVxMRPPtvu-QuWmcD8xXeVOXhwSDA@mail.gmail.com>

Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

>> That is, at least to me,
>>
>>          D---E---F
>>         /         \
>>     ---A---B---C---G---H
>>
>> the former, i.e. "the changes the merge G introdues", is "diff C G",
>
> To me, too. In other words, this is the combined diff of all commits
> reachable from all parents of the merge (other than the first parent).
> In your example, that would be the combined diff of D, E and F, which
> equals "git diff C G".
>
>> while "merge commit was skipped" would mean a history like this:
>>
>>     ---A---B---C---D'--E'--F'--H'
>>
>
> This is where your interpretation differs.

I know. If I am rebasing this whole graph on top of somewhere while ignoring merge G:

>>          D---E---F
>>         /         \
>>     ---A---B---C---G---H

I'll expect changes made by A, B, C, D, E, F and H appear as different commits in the result. That is what "ignore G" means to me.

But it is pointless for you to say "Your attempt to misunderstand the current and proposed text is flawed". People are flawed and I am merely pointing out that what you wrote can be read by people other than you in a way you did not mean to.

And my response was an attempt to offer a suggestion to make it harder to be misread by anybody.

> Ignoring a merge sounds like dropping the merge commit and all side
> branches it merges from history.

... Yes to _some_ people (including you, but not me). And that is why we are trying to improve the text in the documentation, no?