Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > I care about the general compatibility of the rebase todo list >> > regardless of which options you enabled on the command line to >> > generate it. >> >> It's a good thing in general, yes. However, I recall I was told by the >> author that --recreate-merges was introduced exactly to break backward >> compatibility of the todo list. If so, could we please agree to stop >> using backward compatibility as an objection in the discussion of this >> particular feature? > > That is a serious misrepresentation of what I said. > > If I had changed --preserve-merges to the new format, *that* would have > broken backwards-compatibility. > > So the entire reason of introducing --recreate-merges was to *not have to > break backwards-compatibility*. > > I definitely did not say the *exact opposite*. I'm sorry I committed ambiguity in my wording that allowed it to be misinterpreted. I actually intended to say roughly the same thing you are saying, as what matters for the discussion is that new todo list format does not need to be (backward-)compatible to that of --preserve-merges. > Hopefully this clarifies your confusion, There was actually no confusion on my side, and I like your wording better. Except that you've managed to clarify your intentions without actually addressing the primary concern: Could we please agree to stop using backward compatibility as an objection in the discussion of the --recreate-merges feature? Could we? I understand you are still resistant to change 'pick' syntax, but it's not because of backward-compatibility, right? -- Sergey
