From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Teach --no-ff option to 'rebase -i'. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:03:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA0FD5B.5090408@xiplink.com> References: <1268755735-20588-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <1268768556-32176-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <20100316214717.GA24880@progeny.tock> <4BA07DC7.9070502@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 17 17:02:14 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NrvhG-0007g5-2N for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:02:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753492Ab0CQQCJ convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:02:09 -0400 Received: from smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.182]:40157 "EHLO smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753161Ab0CQQCH (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:02:07 -0400 Received: from relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9C2DD16F1D8E; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id 1CC9216F1E9B; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:02:07 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) In-Reply-To: <4BA07DC7.9070502@viscovery.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Sixt wrote: > Jonathan Nieder schrieb: >> If I am understanding properly, your idea is that this would be used= on >> a branch after =E2=80=9Cunmerging=E2=80=9D it from master: >> >> B --- C --- D [topic] >> / \ >> A --- ... --- M ... --- U [master] >> >> Here M is a merge commit and U a commit reverting the change from M^ >> to M. >=20 > If I were to re-merge topic into master a second time after this > situation, I would install a temporary graft that removes the second > parent of M and repeat the merge. After the graft is removed, the his= tory > would look like this: >=20 > B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] > / \ \ > A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] >=20 > Are there any downsides? I don't know - I haven't thought it through. I'm not sure I follow how to create that graft. But the original point (which I hadn't made clear) is that at least one= of the topic's commits needs to change in some substantial way. So it's n= ot just a straight re-merge but a new take on the topic. Consider that if the topic's first commit (B) needed to be rewritten th= en the repaired topic would contain only new commits and it could be merged in= to master without reverting the first merge's reversion. What "rebase -i --no-ff" does is allow you to ensure that this will alw= ays be the case, even if you don't actually need to change the topic's first c= ommit. M.