On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27/02/2018 20:59, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> (3) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 >> |\ |\ >> | A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' >> | \ | >> | M | >> | / | >> \-B1---B2---B3---U2 \-B1'--B2'--B3'--U2' >> > > Meh, I hope I`m rushing it now, but for example, if we had decided to > drop commit A2 during an interactive rebase (so losing A2' from > diagram above), wouldn`t U2' still introduce those changes back, once > U1' and U2' are merged, being incorrect/unwanted behavior...? :/ > > p.s. Looks like Johannes already elaborated on this in the meantime, > let`s see... (goes reading that other e-mail[1]) > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1802272330290.56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ In that case, the method won't work well at all, so I think we need a different approach. Thanks, Jake
