Hi Sergey, On 28/02/2018 06:21, Sergey Organov 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. Unfortunately, I have a broken test case saying different - it could very well be a flawed test, too, but let`s elaborate in that other sub-thread[1], indeed. Regards, Buga [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/87606hoflx.fsf@xxxxxxxxx/
