Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not >> > flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology >> > faithfully. >> >> [...] >> >> > Think of --rebase-merges as "--preserve-merges done right". >> >> Both option names seem to miss the primary point of the mode of >> operation that you've formulated in the first sentence. I suggest to >> rather call the new option in accordance to your description, say, >> --no-flatten, --keep-topology, or --preserve-shape. > > A very quick A/B test shows that neither --no-flatten nor --keep-topology > and certainly not --preserve-shape conveys to Git users what those options > are supposed to do. In fact, my preference would be --[no-]flatten, exactly because the default mode of rebase operation flattens the history, and thus what I'm talking about is: git rebase --no-flatten vs git rebase --rebase-merges I honestly fail to see how the latter conveys the purpose of the option better than the former, sorry. To tell the truth, the latter also looks plain ugly to me. > But --rebase-merges did convey the purpose of my patch series. So > there. - Except that your primary description of the series (that I find pretty solid) doesn't mention _merges_ at all and still conveys the purpose? - Except that this patch series _don't_ actually _rebase_ merges? Yeah, I remember a follow-up is to be expected, but anyway. I'm still unconvinced. -- Sergey
