Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:11:47 +0300

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> writes:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> >
>> >> Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on having the
>> >> > original parent commits -- not *require* that consistency check?
>> >> 
>> >> I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Could you please point me to
>> >> the *require* you talk about in the original proposal?
>> >
>> > Imagine a todo list that contains this line
>> >
>> > 	merge -C abcdef 123456
>> >
>> > and now the user edits it (this is an interactive rebase, after all),
>> > adding another merge head:
>> >
>> > 	merge -C abcdef 987654 123456
>> >
>> > Now your strategy would have a serious problem: to find the original
>> > version of 987654. If there was one.
>> 
>> We are talking about different checks then. My method has a built-in
>> check that Pillip's one doesn't.
>
> Since you did not bother to elaborate, I have to assume that your
> "built-in check" is that thing where intermediate merges can give you
> conflicts?
>
> If so, there is a possibility in Phillip's method for such conflicts, too:
> we have to perform as many 3-way merges as there are parent commits.
>
> It does make me uncomfortable to have to speculate what you meant,
> though.

It doesn't matter anymore as this check could easily be added to
Phillip's algorithm as well, see [1].

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/[email-masked]