Hi Igor, Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On 01/03/2018 06:39, Sergey Organov wrote: [...] >> >> Yeah, I now see it myself. I'm sorry for being lazy and not inspecting >> this more carefully in the first place. > > No problem, that`s why we`re discussing it, and I`m glad we`re > aligned now, so we can move forward :) > >> > So while your original proposal currently seems like it could be >> > working nicely for non-interactive rebase (and might be some simpler >> > interactive ones), now hitting/acknowledging its first real use >> > limit, my additional quick attempt[1] just tries to aid pretty >> > interesting case of complicated interactive rebase, too, where we >> > might be able to do better as well, still using you original proposal >> > as a base idea :) >> >> Yes, thank you for pushing me back to reality! :-) The work and thoughts >> you are putting into solving the puzzle are greatly appreciated! > > You`re welcome, and I am enjoying it :) > >> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal had a >> mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is a way to >> fix it, and I want to try to figure what exactly was wrong in the >> original proposal and to find simpler way of doing it right. >> >> The likely solution is to use original UM as a merge-base for final >> 3-way merge of U1' and U2', but I'm not sure yet. Sounds pretty natural >> though, as that's exactly UM from which both U1' and U2' have diverged >> due to rebasing and other history editing. > > Yes, this might be it...! ;) > > To prove myself it works, I`ve assembled a pretty crazy `-s ours` > merge interactive rebase scenario, and it seems this passes the test, > ticking all the check boxes (I could think of) :P I must admit it's quite a relief to hear this. What we now have is so simple and obvious that it'd be a huge disappointment if didn't work! > Here, merge commit M is done with `-s ours` (obsoleting branch "B"), > plus amended to make it an "evil merge", where a commit B2 from > obsoleted branch "B" is cherry picked to "master". [...] > There, I hope I didn`t miss any expectation. And, it _seems_ to work > exactly as expected :D That's very nice, to the level of being even suspect! :-) To avoid falling into euphoria though, we need to keep in mind that "expectations" is rather vague concept, and we likely still need to stop for user amendment unless we absolutely sure nothing surprising happens. I.e., we better require U1'==U2' test to succeed to proceed non-stop automatically. Besides, it will be somewhat inline with what 'rerere' does. > In real life, except for usual possibility for conflicts during > commit rebasing, we might experience _three_ possible conflict > situations once "rebased" merge itself is to be created - two when > rebasing each of temporary merge helper commits, and one on the > "rebased" merge itself. This is something where we might think about > user experience, not introducing (too much) confusion... Yeah, this is terribly important issue to take care of! Relative simplicity of the concept itself raises the chances of finding a suitable solution, I hope. -- Sergey
