Hi Johannes, On 28/02/2018 00:27, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > thank you for making this a lot more understandable to this thick > developer. Hehe, no problem, it primarily served fighting my own thickness ;) > > Finally, we drop temporary commits, and record rebased commits A3' > > and B3' as our "rebased" merge commit parents instead (merge commit > > M' keeps its same tree/snapshot state, just gets parents replaced): > > > > (5) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 > > |\ |\ > > | A1---A2---A3---U1 | A1'--A2'--A3' > > | \ | \ > > | M | M' > > | / | / > > \-B1---B2---B3---U2 \-B1'--B2'--B3' > > ... > > In my example, where I dropped A1' specifically so that that embarrasingly > incorrect change to the README would not be seen by the world, though, the > evil merge would be truly evil: it would show said change to the world. > The exact opposite of what I wanted. Yeah, I`m afraid that`s what my testing produced as well :( Back to the drawing board... > It would have been nice to have such a simple solution ;-) Eh, the worst thing is the feeling I have, like it`s just around the corner, but we`re somehow missing it :P > So the most obvious way to try to fix this design would be to recreate the > original merge first, even with merge conflicts, and then trying to use the > diff between that and the actual original merge commit. For simplicity sake, this is something I would like to avoid (if possible), and also for the reasons you mentioned yourself: > Now, would this work? > > I doubt it, for at least two reasons: > > - if there are merge conflicts between A3/B3 and between A3'/B3', those > merge conflicts will very likely look very different, and the conflicts > when reverting R will contain those nested conflicts: utterly confusing. > And those conflicts will look even more confusing if a patch (such as > A1') was dropped during an interactive rebase. > > - One of the promises was that the new way would also handle merge > strategies other than recursive. What would happen, for example, if M > was generated using `-s ours` (read: dropping the B* patches' changes) > and if B1 had been cherry-picked into the history between X1..X2? > > Reverting R would obviously revert those B1 changes, even if B1' would > obviously not even be part of the rebased history! > > ... > > But maybe I missed something obvious, and the design can still be fixed > somehow? Would additional step as suggested in [1] (using R1 and R2 to "catch" interactive rebase additions/amendments/drops, on top of U1' and U2'), make more sense (or provide an additional clue, at least)? It`s late here, and I`m really rushing it now, so please forgive me if it`s a stupid one... :$ Regards, Buga [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/8829c395-fb84-2db0-9288-f7b28fa0d0d1@xxxxxxxxx/
