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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 64FD41FAE2 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 07:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934865AbeCHHDq (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:03:46 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:44637 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751107AbeCHHDo (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:03:44 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.64] ([88.26.243.156]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTeVY-1f2WkZ1UC8-00QW9N; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:03:35 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:03:32 +0100 (STD) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@MININT-6BKU6QN.europe.corp.microsoft.com To: Junio C Hamano cc: Phillip Wood , Igor Djordjevic , Jacob Keller , Sergey Organov , Git Mailing List , Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [RFC] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution(RoadClear) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> <1298a701-a860-a675-83d7-72f29e14cd2b@talktalk.net> <1580e48a-be44-38dd-79af-8a2a31c5712e@talktalk.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:RUh7BL9ktU30q33pvy+u3J8d8C7AKBz26EB7xJvc6zjUlhE4WeM R2eIEZrvjbeYjngnbdYeNSOWmNIq2xT1OuFmoJlooO1W83vjOFTfiNDfOD4WAQHMAMvZbWC 67FUTfUqk1uO8RuY90ZJzTmqqGxIR8xaml0yOU7vrdaletF80l53+MqGqHYrs1vZS9Kznq8 qWyoZcseQS6m5Pb7hAJ8g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:NEXY1CrhIEw=:LEuhwQsPwK/j30OzBtxoCh +5pIu9lzwPpjT5pls9C0/UKdnef951lg5Mjq69jKFnPXWkzh1qImY+BI2xHfYvrEVgQAuFBDE N3r8ynFKHKhFS1521Cf1zOZKU4LTiYwF1o99q2gsozEf5mrDEAfU7Rag9GwV4Oqsets/9w17R ojKCyLAg/u4v3lKpoal4YVgLDWwR+AxBynzXd/2toECZO7RWylxflcs7bXBV8XGwR2zwXeinT ztDE/k/kdLcCTWGJkSwTnTGI5L6byO8LpDEig/XAhbfgsyYV7gdRyC6PPw6qbsWjzJC3ipnOx DezLcWjOKcd8q9KCnm0gsKpNPIi4LRhckJPoR+ZB07ued3Xji+LS+uS4MRRGP0cZYkyOUPdSo KE5yz86hvP6j9A4yMPtxoZ0vFWRveMgOFONRd94Uw6OygH1ciJ+Co6g2u9tvGv9ZdHppqYYYJ 9bMfY+5oPKbRxjIH7tOjq4JB/IghRV+PTQTHRyBsOAXKcxdV+R8f348R2T7fF1sO7gFsaRqyq FBUsrQRy4mrzgIAsVH3TkoC9P8tzhouX0b9ypROC9404W4X/MD2rR5FFp3ZUTBFa02x2+QfrP bVqTx/FpB6LJ/RxF2WrMd89NZ82TCtykKjwRZh1zO7IJOqkQ5QphY38W4YWwps2YhSmn+EuOO yqdXr4UTKZpUAKE9qEPvSTus2/yC1wP2kqNMawYdclExxHCUIcPhTSjy3o+8mnf2xB5iS6Q5X QVGg4mu1CyzTtWUuuiRQ2skN0FkpGYxnK79Spn4Qc4BggCFUAxKnIiOsI5Qca6FpRpBGGYA68 J8WBNtbE4h5zzSCoqAq36ULWVT0yZt23cKxPDOypyHbUQh2wKs= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Junio, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> OK, does this mean we want to wait before merging the "recreate > >> merge" topic down to 'next'? For more than a few weeks, it has been > >> slated for 'next'. > > > > Maybe a few more days. > > ... > > I want to discuss this in the other subthread, though. > > If we are talking about a drastic change, a few more days may not be > sufficient, but we are not in a hurry, as this already sounds like a > 2.18 material anyway. It is not at all a drastic change. It will actually make the current patch series better (simplifying the "can we fast-forward?" check). I just want to make sure that I already have Phillip's strategy working, but it will be yet another topic branch on top of the topic branch that will add support for octopus merges *after* the current --recreate-merges topic branch ;-) > As you made it clear that it is OK not to merge the current one for now, > my objective of asking the question is already satisfied ;-) Depending how much GitMerge will occupy my time, I hope to have something polished by tomorrow. Ciao, Dscho