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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3FD1F4D7 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1378092AbiDTLaJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:30:09 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36982 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1378099AbiDTLaH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:30:07 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D480A41611 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 04:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id c64so1837809edf.11 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 04:27:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=klerks.biz; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EpL0xJXaNjAZAj+bBQt85n2PmdXykRLUcxATa5Mu5UE=; b=OEDyd82Ft4e2zld5l+0znsgFjxYKkht5++iqGDi812STEaX4NPDYyBmllw0ij58v7u C5wfwJ4W+/m56QlMqDGaTqW3tpJJanfCtBN4tQXmBm0SfHKeF+zeoqieL2fZ01ZdT4A2 Elf2mI/J0WDn8DYkJTdxDsnG8Li5jyzg51tsE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EpL0xJXaNjAZAj+bBQt85n2PmdXykRLUcxATa5Mu5UE=; b=i2L956QPBw215TKOy5mIjq6CMujtiLelX1I7Se84ZknGF67tmyBZjP2g9/dNDTCRFg uAUKl0HsdVrqfHlDCLU1vIqt5Lq4UWGUQ7sDey0ozGarR8sZ4rsZFzhdlgkyFgm6mFLZ jd2+Z3RXEi2qagTn5sjrOLBx8i8L/jfdEkq8gn2H3XHcHAiOfOKOZxPsO1FLdLW8oI4a m14zj59zd8naSreidcHrlsLqgpZtGtnUXcUstYwxJTatmXxPPG+yAsz5WE8bIkbVZYxf zDzesRwZ9lizhaUwfGwk4SDzRtN2ijtKsVntgQiYV0ixdMtvfgr2tSIHemxfMZk4TTE5 HnZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530yJSTpKJJ/VrnmZY0QL6ulyg7M8D1aLpw2E2d+6ZUa+CRjrnmU FF78JJfTSAytnmQoLcbSTC1Eu1ufBL2Kwifeff2OdQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3VABdtRD60gcS/nMfp+mXql/Vib523Fqr1g4Fu2sV80lH39OTqiP5q99gBySwXI0QzSnWfP5ez44RlET4cLY= X-Received: by 2002:a50:954b:0:b0:41a:c9cb:8778 with SMTP id v11-20020a50954b000000b0041ac9cb8778mr22781617eda.165.1650454039383; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 04:27:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220413164336.101390-1-eantoranz@gmail.com> <87lew226iw.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> In-Reply-To: From: Tao Klerks Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:27:07 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] introducing git replay To: Elijah Newren Cc: Sergey Organov , Edmundo Carmona Antoranz , Junio C Hamano , Git List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 6:28 PM Elijah Newren wrote: > > If you read the suggestion I made (which I'll reinclude here at [1]), > you'll note that I read the old thread you link to with both your and > Phillips' suggestions. I dug into them with some examples, and came > to the conclusion that we needed something better, as I briefly > commented when proposing my suggested alternative (at [1]). I > appreciate your suggestion and the time you put into it, but based on > my earlier investigation, I believe my suggestion would be a better > way of preserving user changes in merges and I'll be implementing it. > The fact that Martin (in this thread) independently came up with the > same basic idea and implemented it in jj (though he apparently has > some further tweaks around the object model) and it works well > suggests to me that the idea has some real world testing too that > gives me further confidence in the idea. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGW39_5r8Lbt3ymR+F_=hWJcf=2e7O75vFNJ=3CEL5s=g@mail.gmail.com/ Thank you for the clarification, and sorry I'm clearly missing something here - the link you provided is to a deeply threaded conversation about "[PATCH 08/12] merge-ort: provide a merge_get_conflicted_files() helper function", in the context of a server-side merge support patchset... I can't figure out how to relate that conversation to the "how can safely reusing previous merge outcomes when rebasing a merge work well?" topic I thought you had introduced here :(