Hi Buga, On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 08/03/2018 20:58, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > > > Phillip's method is essentially merging the new tips into the original > > > merge, pretending that the new tips were not rebased but merged into > > > upstream. > > > > [...] > > > > Here`s a starting point, two commits A and B, merged into M: > > > > (3) ---A > > \ > > M > > / > > ---B > > > > > > According the "patch theory"[1] (which might not be too popular > > around here, but should serve the purpose for what I`m trying to > > explain), each merge commit can be "transformed" to two non-merge > > commits, one on top of each of the merge parents, where new commit > > brings its original merge parent commit tree to the state of the > > merge commit tree: > > > > (4) ---A---U1 > > > > > > > > ---B---U2 > > > > > > Now, we have two new commits, U1 and U2, each having the same tree as > > previous merge commit M, but representing changes in regards to > > specific parents - and this is essentially what Sergey`s original > > approach was using (whether he knew it, or not). > > > > When it comes to rebasing, it`s pretty simple, too. As this: > > > > (5) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 (master) > > |\ > > | A1---A2---A3 > > | \ > > | M > > | / > > \-B1---B2---B3 > > > > ... actually equals this: > > > > (6) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 (master) > > |\ > > | A1---A2---A3---U1 > > | > > | > > | > > \-B1---B2---B3---U2 > > > > ... where trees of M, U1 and U2 are same, and we can use the regular > > rebase semantics and rebase it to this: > > > > (7) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 (master) > > |\ > > | A1'--A2'--A3'--U1' > > | > > | > > | > > \-B1'--B2'--B3'--U2' > > > > ... which is essentially this again: > > > > (8) ---X1---o---o---o---o---o---X2 (master) > > |\ > > | A1'--A2'--A3' > > | \ > > | M' > > | / > > \-B1'--B2'--B3' > > > > Having explained all this, I realized this is the same "essentially > merging the new tips into the original pretending that the new tips > were not rebased but merged into upstream" as Phillip`s one, just > that we have additional temporary commits U1 and U2 (as per mentioned > "patch theory") :) But if the old tips had been merged into upstream (resulting in the new tips), then the merge bases would be *the old tips*. I am still not sure for what scenarios Phillip's strategy is the same as Sergey's (updated) one, as the former strategy can do completely without temporary commits, and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about). Ciao, Dscho
