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 BDC091F404 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1428499AbeCBSPC (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:15:02 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:43599 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1427093AbeCBSPB (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:15:01 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id u49so10984785wrc.10 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:15:00 -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=1ACxP1MInGuUhxZSNKEDbCPz9ewbzGMikahxetQCT6A=; b=I4ZXw0CaLVM3z8feWvt5pNpsQGW6EpTCrwAeLmTaEmufXKdZlG3igbtGO0HIGopI1l Kv66UahfBnczjsIA4Nxl6HABm9y3V19VMOFLRyhpMv11GlzxYKTX4HVAR/R/g8+UXa8+ Fjj/DONRdIlyDvQj0/xhM/6OqSXD1bzAK6tuWMBzSnOoYRDqwRMsOKVHA+R+9nBIKErq 5gmD5KdThV7VxaJT6s6VnBXGSDgQ7LpvZfl8V3BFAuz4dY8prRVRjUhb1GW9kmgk6H+N A5Ri81vJmOLWgY4I9jJXGJy5aSJxR2vUj5WogFVhbJVhk+Kb431mZOcsMG1nZG6t76xO 9WRg== 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=1ACxP1MInGuUhxZSNKEDbCPz9ewbzGMikahxetQCT6A=; b=oZwvkiBvHco+55ZYfJ9lHzjQXMTAP6lPV4W1N+eGyAkvin5wHzrsTuaqIXxD2axdmh KzNbtgFAVTeAJNmN3CoagnUsA+j8+aCLTPuQp3KaDisQsQwZDPsQfh4eo33O55YR90Wq 2BTenvAKNv4mDWZcK8oxKQyz+79q29q8EEEPhcQjGM6knwmTkVXk/iknkUlNllNbqG+a pYUMrItR6ucJQW5hpDwzVwzqScyyD9ZqAP5qetCjXxdNZRkZtD3iKYa+S5xLfeGFIVKI S42tVb6cRXUsb3Fw7mujs/oPWSAnhkQEneJxsntwCyqJ5jwGzRrfRBjO0+p7k61mQPyY +f1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDBk+hbVOWUytluOM9a5NSxkLsjorxoIqclnJFGXkMClh3n2+u+ 3/Y/ob9Of9EZG6CETyi+9Lc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtAzuGhc2y6EedmocHLuD1/2QRdgaNjmi64Dr8INbsmCxPAySRp1RU/q1FAFb95BCDNIIoQVQ== X-Received: by 10.223.163.85 with SMTP id d21mr5744920wrb.105.1520014500169; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:15:00 -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 b99sm10734948wrd.75.2018.03.02.10.14.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:14:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution(RoadClear) To: Phillip Wood Cc: Jacob Keller , Sergey Organov , Git mailing list , Johannes Schindelin , Johannes Sixt , Junio C Hamano 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: Igor Djordjevic Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 19:14:54 +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: 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 Phillip, On 02/03/2018 17:00, Jacob Keller 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. I agree with Jake, and for the exact same reasons. That said, I`d like to see what mentioned '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' does (or would do, once it supports it), would you have a pointer for me where to look at? But if that`s something yet to come, might be it`s still open for discussion. I mean, even this topic started inside original `--recreate-merges` one[1], and hopefully it can still bring improvements there (sooner or later). Thanks, Buga [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1516225925.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de/