From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7F01F404 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 04:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965849AbeCAE0X (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:26:23 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:42222 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965813AbeCAE0W (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:26:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 8541 invoked by uid 109); 1 Mar 2018 04:26:23 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 04:26:23 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 12083 invoked by uid 111); 1 Mar 2018 04:27:11 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:27:11 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:26:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:26:20 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Stefan Beller Cc: git , Sergey Organov , igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: The case for two trees in a commit ("How to make rebase less modal") Message-ID: <20180301042620.GA21310@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 03:30:27PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > During the rebase there might be a hard to resolve conflict, which > you may not want to resolve right now, but defer to later. Deferring a > conflict is currently impossible, because precisely one tree is recorded. > > If we had multiple trees possible in a commit, then all these large scale > operations would stop being modal and you could just record the unresolved > merge conflict instead; to come back later and fix it up later. > > I'd be advocating for having multiple trees in a commit > possible locally; it might be a bad idea to publish such trees. > > Opinions or other use cases? What benefit does it have over adding a new header "unresolved-tree" or similar? I do not think you are getting any backwards compatibility here. For instance, "prune" will not traverse it with existing versions of git, nor "pack-objects" include it in a pack (I didn't actually test it, so I could be wrong; but those are all based around parse_commit, which should look at only the first tree). -Peff