Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 28/02/2018 01:36, Jacob Keller 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...? :/ >> >> In that case, the method won't work well at all, so I think we need a >> different approach. >> > > Hmm, still rushing it, but what about adding an additional step, > something like this: I think it's unneeded, as it should work fine without it, see another reply. -- Sergey
