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=-4.0 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,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,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 D0C261F61A for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 23:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726871AbgCRXj7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:39:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58683 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726647AbgCRXj6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:39:58 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05A8BD844; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:39:56 -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=4WYQGT9wr30nOCJ/wiEN0Bqq8TM=; b=IirDPH NFA/JY+3YppL/JT2t+gzhTOe+WpAZv1l6wdMIw04fRrOwbbF8nMzHYsRTBTYyqyb N5Y4dPXwUbXDz7HNtortIrorHm6F9GUWaplidPuvH/h41Pw+w7Lq7cCpeqP2K9DS WwE3Vs5q7Vy0W4tNNW6vW1zhMbIdL7nDOqUxI= 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=Of3kTc5dMfgj1FGZ0yIWoQP2Au/twV0v LbTUhtZTE/BshwbJ9g2dO3BUUnScixLbh6YmU4GG2Bpbg12+bDx3mvvEZVoTL5Kl 8LUWiSnZhECZ99s0pAj0Oeu09qMN4mpA5UDRRogU6q6QgQCfTUA8Tji/aYiU+pWE NZDjPZMrnZM= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D35BD843; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:39:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (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 122DABD840; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:39:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Jonathan Tan , Git Mailing List , Taylor Blau , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rebase --merge: optionally skip upstreamed commits References: <20200318192821.43808-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:39:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:41:23 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C4B8C578-6971-11EA-8B4F-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > 4) Jonathan provided some good examples of cases where the > --keep-cherry-pick behavior isn't just slow, but leads to actually > wrong answers (a revert followed by an un-revert). That one cuts both ways, doesn't it? If your change that upstream once thought was good (and got accepted) turned out to be bad and they reverted, you do not want to blindly reapply it to break the codebase again, and with the "drop duplicate" logic, it would lead to a wrong answer silently. So from correctness point of view, I do not think you can make any argument either way.