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 BC35B1F404 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946654AbeCBQBQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:01:16 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:38188 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946608AbeCBQBM (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:01:12 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id z9so3920209wmb.3 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:01:12 -0800 (PST) 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=1V7r4pUrbrbx+Ak693MW6f1HyKpKpgCKOWijZrOl1R8=; b=c7lg1q0w4hOTgVGSAC1hR10X6uX2PhvNcPREk0eLZdDm+pcjkhUkVXf4o6A8VdOQ8b Yf/3iRaIZqu0GYoY7kWaD4Wn31JaJTMAJyptUvENWpeOo7oDGz2RrKYCGJTTgtLk77Hn ANvyFMUgeYsFItPyYCs1MTcZKW9vnl4/nPtC4pMytPmaa5n9jopbOoOQE1QhH8MwCVYM PC1VgutqxO/aAaOroZ6YF9l7pFEpz2V6oT2419TyyFWTcN1Is2eGmfRFfywSIG3KRerm GjudVQ8DN1tUeXQpgOJpQTxaaY1KgjuxPC+hoj1NKQ1h8ghfPC7jAmcEeainylFtTO0F 5tGA== 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=1V7r4pUrbrbx+Ak693MW6f1HyKpKpgCKOWijZrOl1R8=; b=WuL6mTFJobn96FsDW5ZExOKRjZ0xkMEx3VIsb3hwDjiqm/ghiEutMuYjw/YiGBA/vW Cugvz2K+4UkmRUuzOR8xGRY0h1tafGijDGafcMzuiUwK5WkTyH7CifZrkmv2DYi/AWqe /aRtHUP2QX6McJsZ8FemDaLJIGXmEPhD1CMFuqo0vZ2iNZxyPqk4ymZz9GpL4EoI7MOR Ge6+S3QvhDLJEcOz1JgYVmYLmwk+tMDlon3NHvoQ6Yh25vkdNhABdxQBt8hmXiEatXli ntyfbe6EOEZKuFoHuGPMDtuySD1AFxs+YKo2ldVTOGd3NEVdsY4//QfbeHscrCRWjoHm am1A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAJGaOV86h7CCrJHy6etpuIybSEa1AGb1l+zGMoIyN1iWmpmIrl q4WzwNXlD5Mg2dywhv0ynftVDN51Ifs04sKgzRA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt8DQpV7dQVA4TD2JzJyICmRNMj/Wi8hirwdgInQlIgLeX3AdWzJKaH80PtyHCSREe2Mvjt/yVnyezNEX3/tc8= X-Received: by 10.80.153.221 with SMTP id n29mr8026170edb.303.1520006471584; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:01:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.139.133 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:00:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87y3jtqdyg.fsf@javad.com> <4d7f3406-b206-cc22-87df-85700d6a03d9@gmail.com> <33da31e9-9101-475d-8901-4b6b3df2f29d@gmail.com> <940d959d-151d-68dd-0f13-320ebad0d75b@gmail.com> <87606hoflx.fsf@javad.com> <0ac3a3fd-4053-e32e-75ed-8829f22c2e1f@gmail.com> <87a7vss6ax.fsf@javad.com> From: Jacob Keller Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:00:50 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution(RoadClear) To: Phillip Wood Cc: Igor Djordjevic , Sergey Organov , Git mailing list , Johannes Schindelin , Johannes Sixt , Junio C Hamano 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 Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Phillip Wood wrote: > > It is interesting to think what it means to faithfully rebase a '-s > ours' merge. In your example the rebase does not introduce any new > changes into branch B that it doesn't introduce to branch A. Had it > added a fixup to branch B1 for example or if the topology was more > complex so that B ended up with some other changes that the rebase did > not introduce into A, then M' would contain those extra changes whereas > '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' (once it supports it) would not. > Unless the method of merging was stored, I don't think we *can* correctly automate resolving of "-s ours" because all we store is the resulting content, and we don't know how or why the user generated it as such. I believe the "correct" solution in any case would be to take the content we DO know and then ask the user to stop for amendments. Thanks, Jake