Am 15.09.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> index 6805a74aec..ccd0a04d54 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>> @@ -782,10 +782,11 @@ case" recovery too!
>>
>> BUGS
>> ----
>> -The todo list presented by `--preserve-merges --interactive` does not
>> -represent the topology of the revision graph. Editing commits and
>> -rewording their commit messages should work fine, but attempts to
>> -reorder commits tend to produce counterintuitive results.
>> +Be careful when combining the `-i` / `--interactive` and `-p` /
"Be careful" is not necessary because the text is already in the "BUGS"
section.
>> +`--preserve-merges` options. Reordering commits will drop commits from the
>> +main line. This is because the todo list does not represent the topology of the
>> +revision graph in this case. However, editing commits and rewording their
>> +commit messages 'should' work fine.
>>
>> For example, an attempt to rearrange
>> ------------
>
>
> Anybody? I personally feel that the updated text is not all that
> stronger but it is clearer by clarifying what "counterintuitive
> results" actually mean, but I am not the target audience this
> paragraph is trying to help, nor I am the one who is making excuse
> for a known bug, so...
>
For me the proposed wording implies that the only bad effect are dropped
commits on the mainline. But I experienced something like this:
O--O--O--O---M--O ==> O--O--O--O---M--O
\ / \ /
O--X--O--O O--X O
Where X was a commit without a ref and hence lost. Also the merge commit
seemed to combine two unrelated histories.
Therefore I would avoid "definitive wording" like "will drop" and use
vague wording along "there are various dragons out there" like this:
The todo list presented by `--preserve-merges --interactive` does
not represent the topology of the revision graph. Editing
commits and rewording their commit messages should work fine.
But reordering, combining or dropping commits of a complex topology
can produce unexpected and useless results like missing commits,
wrong merges, merges combining two unrelated histories and
similar things.
