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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 96B1B1F404 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751172AbeDPPwy (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:52:54 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:34515 "EHLO mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751164AbeDPPwx (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:52:53 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d19so27455670wre.1 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DNYZ+LjS6Db/L1z6o2a5809c1tGMHW5GEXlz/RMqUA4=; b=Vqk56daqo27zWEU7kRvBnRCpMGNJ7AE4hTOTQ18m6k+K0jp1qwmBTPBQd3R5mthgcL tmmgu9lKD+IK+tXqd+hoYdqgCv7s75CWkuIgsFRuyb8YZHCkT5WZ3Wx96l/hYSeaxGOO SRgSU+3USK9KX2rlTyYBPgIIwJ2ZPWbhHP1LQNeWvnhO4way3vjnzOJKQSpvC5JmWMHU ITO4QLlRfT/XXDiGnkv0ImiXF71iy0gAgJuYg6rlmtqJTxBNLdPxfcjsSUBdmAzdjgAS n/TBcSW5ZF8vbggmHPJRn/2NmmeT8log0ZXy51gvgXL5hYz5DAfQC24qjkeptA4MGfPy COuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DNYZ+LjS6Db/L1z6o2a5809c1tGMHW5GEXlz/RMqUA4=; b=A2wnDuCdqfR4q91dbcE0tSY0ZQJDWzo4sNnI4VtwCXGHqYG1BPYjicRhxcDfQHthLZ n0LBFnhZp6SKCbyb02u1LJbPIaSFDyM4aWr8nkZlP3xsnfoveRY8HFbgb9vURN6wFzm6 vcYu5zCgDrMG+MJaVEXg0QUki+iUWhjTCa7gmM16OAeOi7DVzyMMC99DdqW5MiJqWIiN YMeO+gMPvcpjTSovmvR9BkijEzBZdwH5l+VLO6fWc5chsBYx4/ZIxCxV19ZHX6hybUDz 4i3aAGSQbBxYEo97dZlak+XmAy0z+SiUYLE4YhYpa1u7pHWUWKY4Akn/v1oIB8buirTx LsMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBmG5F9HKDsG9cLVXKuK0issz/jv9u4VkwmzpYN0BpEwC4f+Y3z AaZ1lteW2fieew3LfRSNQ9rMphOI6yxWFN9loqc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx494t/hypTvMjuQTvZOc4hMBdGdPhtUIypJKAieMySryGBlbHfhitdq0GYlPKC14NA+XYE2twOCOLkQxM9IGVpw= X-Received: by 10.80.171.72 with SMTP id t8mr1711428edc.133.1523893972235; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:52:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.180.180 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:52:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87in8rz65t.fsf@javad.com> References: <87in8rz65t.fsf@javad.com> From: Jacob Keller Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:52:31 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38 To: Sergey Organov Cc: Christian Couder , git , Junio C Hamano , Jakub Narebski , Markus Jansen , Gabriel Alcaras , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin , Jiang Xin , Eric Sunshine , Kaartic Sivaraam , Igor Djordjevic , Johannes Sixt , Phillip Wood , Phillip Wood Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Sergey Organov wrote: > Hi Christian, > > Christian Couder writes: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder >> 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