From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4421F461 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:20:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726369AbfGBRUS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:20:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50043 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726150AbfGBRUS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:20:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA32153109; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:20:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Jd3BfaDhIFlXzSpzRrACQxV6OaY=; b=eTtWfA 3LwnYuJW/8/WoHHndjuXtkJtkykeksAAxXZPjxMuss/+3Enjpw1N1uukCuYf/Iol K5b6AlmEakaT13sGxjDwaYRgQgIrgg8YQyC9cij+klPBVVgBkaR34XK9GWvFEvzY 7g2jl+t4PUTR3DD7x3tED4zVeyAozvYE5nb0Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Y/I0Rb4HgGzWteFA/uFtbu7sLeBG6qs+ pb0fwVaBqPtmaIbdahV0h6cpA8lK85KMpkYSPjRiiIZFoLSRVosAl7Q+Fp6ypF+K WfusJTrJj6JhcuW11pHnnKLgeqvQxguhu77VeYM5UkSTIPKn5Y5UHnxpSIpVNT8h OSTK90GOsDA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E94153108; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84157153107; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:20:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Jeff King , Edmundo Carmona Antoranz , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] rebuash - squash/rebase in a single step References: <20190630051816.8814-1-eantoranz@gmail.com> <20190630065358.GB31264@sigill.intra.peff.net> <2cece7ff-49af-0cae-7cb8-7cc1821be1ca@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2cece7ff-49af-0cae-7cb8-7cc1821be1ca@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:37:39 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A8419DE4-9CED-11E9-B49B-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > On 7/1/2019 2:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King writes: >> >>>> First, we create a (temporary) merge commit of both branches (M3) >>>> >>>> ------------ >>>> R1---R2---R3---R4---R5---R6---R7---M3 >>>> \ \ \ / >>>> F1---F2---M1---F3---F4---M2---F5 >>>> ------------ >>>> > ... >> If M3 merge is always easier to manage than incremental stepwise >> rebase of the topic, then doing the "git merge --reverse-squash" >> would be a saner interface and also conceptually simpler. > > I agree that this would be a better way to expose this behavior, > and likely the implementation could be very clean. What I was sort-of hoping to get comments on was actually something else. Would there be cases where the merge M3 gets unmanageably complex even if rebasing the feature commits one by one is relatively simple (and how often would that happen)? "merge --squash" would not work well (and extending the command to merge in a different direction would not help) in such a situation, but "rebase -i" would work much better (and "imerge" would, too).