On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I tried to avoid this introducing sentence from the original wording as it reads like from a scientific research paper instead of from a user's manual. > commits and rewording their commit messages should work fine. > But reordering, combining or dropping commits of a complex topology There is no need for complex topology. If you reorder the two most recent commits in a linear history, one gets dropped. > can produce unexpected and useless results like missing commits, > wrong merges, merges combining two unrelated histories and > similar things. "can produce" is much too soft, IMO. Reordering commits goes wrong, period. Like wise "unexpected and useless results" is inappropriate. The results are wrong in case of reordering, and wrong results are of course unexpected and useless. -- Sebastian Schuberth
