On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Martin Fick wrote: > On Monday, December 25, 2017 06:16:40 PM Carl Baldwin wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:52:15PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o > wrote: > > Look at what happens in a rebase type workflow in any of > > the following scenarios. All of these came up regularly > > in my time with Gerrit. > > > > 1. Make a quick edit through the web UI then later > > work on the change again in your local clone. It is easy > > to forget to pull down the change made through the UI > > before starting to work on it again. If that happens, the > > change made through the UI will almost certainly be > > clobbered. > > > > 2. You or someone else creates a second change that is > > dependent on yours and works on it while yours is still > > evolving. If the second change gets rebased with an older > > copy of the base change and then posted back up for > > review, newer work in the base change has just been > > clobbered. > > > > 3. As a reviewer, you decide the best way to explain > > how you'd like to see something done differently is to > > make the quick change yourself and push it up. If the > > author fails to fetch what you pushed before continuing > > onto something else, it gets clobbered. > > > > 4. You want to collaborate on a single change with > > someone else in any way and for whatever reason. As soon > > as that change starts hitting multiple work spaces, there > > are synchronization issues that currently take careful > > manual intervention. > > These scenarios seem to come up most for me at Gerrit hack- > a-thons where we collaborate a lot in short time spans on > changes. We (the Gerrit maintainers) too have wanted and > sometimes discussed ways to track the relation of "amended" > commits (which is generally what Gerrit patchsets are). We > also concluded that some sort of parent commit pointer was > needed, although parent is somewhat the wrong term since > that already means something in git. Rather, maybe some > "predecessor" type of term would be better, maybe > "antecedent", but "amended-commit" pointer might be best? I like "replaces" as I have proposed or "supersedes". "predecessor" also seems pretty good. I may add that to my list of favorites. Carl
