On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > ... > >> This would apply on top of mz/rebase after dropping 95135b0 (rebase: > >> stricter check of standalone sub command, 2011-02-06). If you agree > >> with it, I will include it in a future re-roll. > > > > Any opinions about this, anyone? I have one example: I was rebasing > > some things the other day where I thought there would be no conflicts. > > After applying a number of patches, it turned out there were > > conflicts. I think allowing 'git rebase --continue -sours' would have > > been useful in that case. It's rare enough that I don't care much, > > though. > > Hmm, do you think applying -sours throughout to the rest of the series > would have been a safe thing, or do you think you would rather wanted to > see -sours applied only to that particular one? In this particular case, I actually wanted it on the rest of the series, but it was such a degenerate case that it doesn't really matter (I just wanted the history graph for testing and didn't care about the trees). > > The reason I'm asking is that I have a patch that fixes the problems > > with the command line parsing that Johannes Sixt pointed out in > > another mail on this thread and would like to know if I should make it > > apply on top of this patch or not. > > It is a good idea to build a change you are more certain of first, > excluding the ones you have doubts about. True. Will do. Let's leave this patch for now then and get back to it in a few years when/if someone actually requests it ;-). I agree that it's not clear at this point what the desired behavior is. -- 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