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 840681F404 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934817AbeB1Ux2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:53:28 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:35090 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934745AbeB1Ux1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:53:27 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f196.google.com with SMTP id l43so3879154wrc.2 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:53:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ez5w9KfmeFeYvt2EBqnp8Vfv/oMLk4xkV1lScNkxXy8=; b=MNG0q1PWt2CqYpiYEaGWzotmWnT6G74m8u6HgDJWsZ0/om5MumD4m9KWXnmmS9+mct 5VwJ8HSY1YV8VQzrmPHT6qA+HxXbx72Sg+vY9pnQOubVYoVpSPzb/5BRl5Wk4t1cyZ21 AqGbHWaFr/zPIvGGI8zKTZWIvr5ojGXqwnQdff3txtliIJ1I55jnxe4DZ9255zTk1ftT 598H2aX7IX8DNHrp4dxeke8HuAn1G0BLGrHfoLEfGItjhZWJ6LbxSFaVUiUFIqy1dk3x owWMG0ZKKZrmhoN1FX89jbux+8FXVEHnsU/qBEVRnPqC2+NV1VYdrLcyEEqt209P31FF /Uug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ez5w9KfmeFeYvt2EBqnp8Vfv/oMLk4xkV1lScNkxXy8=; b=kO8w86uGTyew6Q7nWSghmg84X2ALetIx4D4RTA5nF2oWFQuaZl1NG5FlIZTkpfpM3j h4oQZ9rvFL6iesQaSuOmXOpU4loIQfAQMcT0Was2IVHJpNlHAdm8x/snP4NTzDuL72aq s/kBO1rXtxG10IHsxu7XCreaD+DSCg1EllrgU2LfriEZds84MaU79+UAfo8t8rzVzRwZ Zo9ol1iiT/untLKesG679/BzAjbWM7KwgBEx9xXPfU6llmQodlO1yNvynjFmv/sxe1am vNnQwb4Zoe5KcAj7jqKtYWHR+XH5p72rjHy6HhMTaYeXJuP0BLF2jUYsvwe1vpUqOAqP ABaA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCgvMDnXx50M22qaKUdk8srg5+qRtlmV5rPMFT3q1olvBUxDhEH CvdzZ2rYqQj8jjaMe5soYrb1EFdOZD8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226dXgTDp3c4E8xdE5FoMbVU62koOx+kv3UwS05ShoVDROBrefWCfRguUu/T5yEt5rMqFx9hig== X-Received: by 10.223.208.132 with SMTP id y4mr15964828wrh.185.1519851205929; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.5.102] (cable-24-135-61-30.dynamic.sbb.rs. [24.135.61.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e67sm2846337wmd.7.2018.02.28.12.53.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear) To: Sergey Organov Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Git mailing list , Jacob Keller , Johannes Sixt , Junio C Hamano References: <87y3jtqdyg.fsf@javad.com> <4d7f3406-b206-cc22-87df-85700d6a03d9@gmail.com> <33da31e9-9101-475d-8901-4b6b3df2f29d@gmail.com> <3b562b51-2f1a-48f6-d6b4-8e0fbddd3a40@gmail.com> <87k1uxmyib.fsf@javad.com> From: Igor Djordjevic Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 21:53:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87k1uxmyib.fsf@javad.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 07:14, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > > Would additional step as suggested in [1] (using R1 and R2 to "catch" > > > interactive rebase additions/amendments/drops, on top of U1' and > > > U2'), make more sense (or provide an additional clue, at least)? > > > > > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/8829c395-fb84-2db0-9288-f7b28fa0d0d1@gmail.com/ > > > > Anyway, from (yet another) ad hoc test, additional step mentioned in > > [1] above seems to handle this case, too (merge with `-s ours` > > dropping B* patches, plus B1 cherry-picked between X1..X2) > > > > ... > > > > And not just that - it worked with additional interactive rebase > > adding, amending and removing commits, on top of all this still > > preserving original `-s ours` merge commit evil-merge amendment, too, > > all as expected (or so it seems) :P > > Great! I do believe that once we start from some sensible approach, many > kinds of improvements are possible. I'll definitely need to take close > look at what you came up with, thanks! > > I'd like to say though that nobody should expect miracles from automated > rebasing of merges when we get to complex history editing. It will need > to retreat to manual merge, sooner or later. I agree, and as I really liked "the feeling" of the original approach you described, it felt bad to (presumably) see it failing in what doesn`t seem to be neither too complex nor rare situation of dropping a commit during an interactive rebase, thus motivation to try to improve it, if possible, wasn`t lacking :) Eh, might be I`m just naively ignorant at the moment as well, but I`m trying to work my way through it... ;) Regards, Buga