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

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:54:14 +0300

Jacob Keller <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your
>>> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method.
>>
>> Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial
>> merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git
>> calls "trivial merge".  The phrase has an established meaning in Git
>> and your attempt to abuse it to mean something entirely different is
>> adding unnecessary hindrance for other people to understand what you
>> want to perform.
>
> Agreed, I think we need better terminology here, the current words for
> (TM) are definitely *not* trivial merges. Same for "angel merge", I
> don't think that term really works well either.

Agreed.

How do we call a merge that introduces no differences on either side of
the merge then? Is there some English for even more trivial than what
Git calls "trivial merge"?

-- Sergey