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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 0D8301F404 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:29:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932217AbeCMA3m (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:29:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:41977 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932102AbeCMA3l (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:29:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id f14so17749258wre.8 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:29:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JyT2rVi7/Dd/wg8YN0ZyQ/42Hufu9lInM+G7wBhq4Rk=; b=XpmItl3duqo42JF1sChAroTJwXdN6RhRUUkf5DEeQoMAzJBwqbpyh931/pADR9R92P 4JV4YZYXRkQ8WP6dWU1G/+VVeCeNGicO4Ko2pQELjrA8zLhLJTAy30JPEVq/Rvo4X7yp ACma8cDfOCnbNgkcZY8EKPKG/jTMRVnlSieMjPKcwygFImWfoEloCRdh1WTmNfohvabg bgzGEUbRKBwS6SseKxSko2zynGmdW2zlwxdMXfyWdNBTeJVXfBrP7DE2ZlWYfXXFhbXR jUqtvp96zS5W1exw/cDek5hsLX7su8Y9NRdDExaRCh/YrMNQvM2Oh9grtcxEMJ0gREOM NTrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JyT2rVi7/Dd/wg8YN0ZyQ/42Hufu9lInM+G7wBhq4Rk=; b=hDncQBM0jdnFiHtAoD9z+z+CZciUsPcvUB+Je6ET3TzJZxSpxYKVJdzTMsrDEaEuvF anCcnUnM9r2wi86McxiGGOA82pCdR0cdIXQsKAuRcX4aWl2RdTgObBxGlyp3ZIDrlNJT PcoJOC/mdCH9UWw6wdksn4PiN0qKnIVh+/wl1OBRcUJlodDq7+KFh9t802k34mguIkX4 SNDETjq0ExMUt65Ekhyus8VeTbxF5GrJa2rtzdnby6E2zd59vqKrIoat2es15B3FNhUR rUPygSQs7+e65q9cuAvPeI2wCtHe4PApvVjZBLQxZpi5Mr+CTLy8r6btze50yZ2Fd7T5 1yDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HTGLLHoH2FnzmGHWjkrqxNrcKtWb99JE/46WwUPzhLUHfNMevK Ano3jwnQN4TKrWzHyrX4cQ0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu+0miYXqr8c0whLx2xkEqnntwowgUXY8f4r6dujKC1nAWjWAzA50Q8YJGPcae4OdfVrZLYFw== X-Received: by 10.28.194.213 with SMTP id s204mr5660181wmf.43.1520900980569; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.5.102] (cable-24-135-61-30.dynamic.sbb.rs. [24.135.61.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r70sm7570706wmg.40.2018.03.12.17.29.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear) To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Sergey Organov , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Sixt , Junio C Hamano , Jacob Keller , Phillip Wood References: <87y3jtqdyg.fsf@javad.com> <87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com> <87vae8yq15.fsf@javad.com> <4918cc79-79ba-5dd2-ea84-dc47db47d835@gmail.com> <6362804d-e204-a9e0-9ff0-51d8497ce921@gmail.com> From: Igor Djordjevic Message-ID: <45d05a89-b10e-5035-7c5b-2981dba27d42@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:29:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Dscho, On 12/03/2018 11:20, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > [...] and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the > > > changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about). > > > > Hmm, not following here, which ambiguities are we talking about? > > U1' vs U2' of course. Those are two things that can be different, even if > they ideally would have identical trees. > > Phillip's strategy does not leave that room for ambiguity. Ehm, in Sergey`s approach, this is not an issue, but a feature :) If U1' != U2', it just means a more complex rebase happened, but it doesn`t compromise the result (rebased merge) in any way. On the other hand, if U1' == U2', we can be pretty sure that merge rebasing went as clean as possible. That`s the idea, at least. Regards, Buga