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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0834C1F8C6 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 20:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344942AbhIBUHI (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:07:08 -0400 Received: from bsmtp1.bon.at ([213.33.87.15]:50652 "EHLO bsmtp1.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344861AbhIBUHH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:07:07 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.98] (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp1.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4H0sPV1cDnz5tlC; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:06:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Drop support for git rebase --preserve-merges To: Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Wong References: From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <4e998676-4975-8ac2-35a0-34416938b62e@kdbg.org> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:06:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 02.09.21 um 16:18 schrieb Johannes Schindelin: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> A good goal. There is no remaining use case where (a fictitious and >> properly working version of) "--preserve-merges" option cannot be >> replaced by "--rebase-merges", is it? I somehow had a feeling that >> the other Johannes (sorry if it weren't you, j6t) had cases that the >> former worked better, but perhaps I am mis-remembering things. > > I think that I managed to address whatever concerns there were about the > `--rebase-merges` backend in the meantime. That was either my suggestion/desire to make no-rebase-cousins the default. That has been settled. Or my wish not to redo the merge, but to replay the first-parent difference. The idea never got traction, and I've long since abandoned my implementation of it. > To be honest, I developed one (minor) concern in the meantime... Should we > maybe try to be nicer to our users and keep handling the > `--preserve-merges` option by explicitly erroring out with the suggestion > to use `--rebase-merges` instead? Not everybody reads release notes, after > all. In fact, it is my experience that preciously few users have the time > to even skim release notes... A valid concern, I would think. -- Hannes