Eric Wong <normalperson@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> - You kept the original "format-patch piped to am" workflow >> optionally working. > > I left it as the default, too. I figured that it's best not > to change the default (and most likely faster) behavior of > something people rely on. I should have said: "You kept ... working, which is good". >> I think the three-way merge you would want here is not between B >> and G using E as the pivot, but between B and G using A as the >> pivot. That's how cherry-pick and revert works. I would >> leverage the interface that is one level lower for this -- the >> strategy modules themselves. >> >> git-merge-$strategy $cmt^ -- HEAD $cmt > > Changing the 'git-merge $strategy_args "rebase-merge: $cmt" HEAD "$cmt"' > line in call_merge() to this seems to have broken more tests. Oh, that is to be expected if you changed git-merge -s recursive with git-merge-recursive without other changes. The former makes a commit (which your original patch later used to create a separate commit chain and discarded); the latter does not make a commit but expects the caller to create a commit out of the resulting index file. > I'm not an expert at merging strategies by any measure, I've just > trusted merge-recursive to Do The Right Thing(TM) more often than not, > and use rerere to avoid repeating work. I was originally hoping that rebasing would just be a matter of listing sequence of commits to be ported onto a new base and running "git-cherry-pick" on each of them in sequence. Now cherry-pick does not use merge machinery (hence does not use git-merge-recursive), but if we change that then updating rebase would be pretty much straightforward. It just needs a UI layer to guide the user through recovery process when the merge does not resolve cleanly in the middle, no? - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html