Hello Johannes, W dniu 09.09.2016 o 17:12, Johannes Schindelin napisał: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> I was sort of expecting that, when you do the preserve-merges mode >> of "rebase -i", you would need to jump around, doing "we have >> reconstructed the side branch on a new 'onto', let's give the result >> this temporary name ':1', and then switch to the trunk (which would >> call for 'reset <commit>' instruction) and merge that thing (which >> would be 'merge :1' or perhaps called 'pick :1')", and at that point >> you no longer validate the object references upfront. > > Except that is not how --preserve-merges works: it *still* uses the SHA-1s > as identifiers, even when the SHA-1 may have changed in the meantime. > > That is part of why it was a bad design. When preserving merges, there are (as far as I understand it), two problems: - what it means to preserve changes (which change to pick, that is what is the mainline changes rebase is re-applying) - what are parents of the merge commit (at least one parent would be usually rewritten) Maybe the internal (and perhaps also user-visible) representation of merge in instruction sheet could use the notation of filter-branch, that is 'map(<sha-1>)'... it could also imply the mainline. That is the instruction in the internal instruction sheet could look like this: merge -m 1 map(2fd4e1c67a2d28fced849ee1bb76e7391b93eb12) da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 \t Merge 'foo' into master Note that it has nothing to do with this series! Best regards, -- Jakub Narębski