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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4811A1F461 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727031AbfGLSdM (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:33:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:51223 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726811AbfGLSdM (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:33:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F188570D12; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:33:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lVFiQv9pcUpo+O9GYKcnrQyzqXI=; b=lfv0Dn /dh+n2qKF0PSgy3EFL1TuaS2lQoWoaKoKFh0zDsTwgnwQcZcb3LG2sZCHux9BL8Y m/oFO0u6H53MPfGA/bO9TTv8hHkkhwkcKj2Q0a8hRZA7+GcfZuwDvJ3lb1mDEeFP z+nzn+nAtiFIJ7SNe/V4IKgKjZcQxFtONk+lI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=YIwzk5MlMfJHcmRHB6OfLb4mBWh9/2C7 UAxaeF43hSvPfJPyqZkq6GHd6qfy9XMHTFEZScsD6av5uz50UefsD3w+dK2XNk6u KCi4r/mb4vxbNjiOXmvPgmjKvTghXeqv47waI6q6hiKAzrVViIgf/Aky4fIsq6OW j+rf0SlYo60= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EE570D11; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:33:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83AE970D0F; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:33:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Sergey Organov Cc: Bryan Turner , Elijah Newren , usbuser@mailbox.org, Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Unexpected or wrong ff, no-ff and ff-only behaviour References: <423596682.8516.1562665372094@office.mailbox.org> <1152121968.7459.1562688927235@office.mailbox.org> <275487563.12198.1562691633735@office.mailbox.org> <87sgrdf91j.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87blxz9xbh.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:33:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87blxz9xbh.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (Sergey Organov's message of "Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:50:10 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7BEAF36A-A4D3-11E9-87BB-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Sergey Organov writes: >> If we have a project like this: >> >> A topic that is slightly stale >> / >> o---F---o---o---X mainline >> >> M, A', and N should end up with identical trees: >> >> >> A-----------M topic that is slightly stale, merged into mainline >> / / >> o---F---o---o---X---N mainline with A' merged >> \ / >> A' mainline with A rebased on top as A' >> >> And by forcing to rebase A to A' before merging into the mainline as >> N, compared to advancing mainline from X to M, one major difference >> the workflow is making is to _lose_ the information that the topic >> was cooked in the context of an older mainline and did not take what >> happened since F until X into account.... > > However, committing untested M still doesn't taste as the best possible > way of handling things in general. It'd be best to actually test M or N > before publishing. Oh, no question about it. I am not advocating (and I do not do personally) publishing an untested tip. But the point is, if M and N are equally well tested before publication, they may still have bugs resulting from subtle interactions between A and F..X that is not discovered during that testing. And N loses the information that would help diagnosing what went wrong, which does not happen if you published M. About the docs easily getting misinterpreted, I think Elijah covered it pretty well. Thanks.