Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
>> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>>>
>>>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md
>>
>> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake
>> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those
>> discussions.
>
> I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what
> and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.
>
> [all quotations below are taken from the draft]
>
>> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts
>> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)
>> followed.
>>
>>    Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>>    (written by Jacob Keller)
>
> What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please
> check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not
> by Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing
> merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs
> right after the next paragraph:

I believe he meant that the summary on git rev news was written by me,
that's all :)

>
>> After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a
>> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating
>> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the
>> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result.
>
> The reference to:
>
>     Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>     (written by Sergey Organov)
>
> belongs here, if at all.
>
> In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:
>
>> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
>> his updated strategy.
>
> This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during
> application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:
>
> "Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
> his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any
> conflicts."
>
> Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:
>
>> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately
>> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge
>> commit as a merge base during the final step.
>
> This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the
> original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it
> right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as
> merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong
> merge base, that is the one computed by "git merge-base U1' U2'".
>
> Something along these lines may fit better:
>
> "Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,
> ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,
> specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the
> final step."
>
> I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right
> here. The reference is:
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> -- Sergey

Yep that all sounds right to me also.

Thanks,
Jake