Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +Sometimes you're in a situation like this >> + >> + P---o---o---M---x---x---W---x >> + \ / >> + A---B---C >> + >> +where you: >> + >> + - Need to rewrite one of the commits on the A-B-C branch; and >> + >> + - Want the rewritten A-B-C branch to still start at commit P (perhaps P >> + is a branching-off point for yet another branch, and you want be able to >> + merge A-B-C into both branches). >> + >> +The natural thing to do in this case is to checkout the A-B-C branch and use >> +"rebase -i A" to change commit B. However, this does not rewrite commit A, >> +and you end up with this: >> + >> + P---o---o---M---x---x---W---x >> + \ / >> + A---B---C <-- old branch >> + \ >> + B'---C' <-- rewritten branch >> + >> +To merge A-B'-C' into the mainline branch you would still have to first revert >> +commit W in order to pick up the changes in A, but then it's likely that the >> +changes in B' will conflict with the original B changes re-introduced by the >> +reversion of W. > > I think you need to clarify in the above text that W is a revert of M. > I was very confused by this at first. Someone who reads through the whole file will see that W is the reversion of M. It's probably good to repeat that in the addendum for readers who jump to the addendum right away. > Other than that, I'll leave it to others more opinionated than me to > comment on whether regenerating a commit just for the sake of > regenerating it is actually desirable or not :) I'm all ears! M. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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