Hi Christian, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder > <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here: >> >> https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md > > The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake > about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those > discussions. I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what and how has been discussed, except for a few issues. [all quotations below are taken from the draft] > Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts > (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?) > followed. > > Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear) > (written by Jacob Keller) What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not by Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs right after the next paragraph: > After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a > potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating > it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the > merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result. The reference to: Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Sergey Organov) belongs here, if at all. In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following: > Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as > his updated strategy. This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe: "Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any conflicts." Next, this is very close, but not exactly right: > Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately > resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge > commit as a merge base during the final step. This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong merge base, that is the one computed by "git merge-base U1' U2'". Something along these lines may fit better: "Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method, specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the final step." I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right here. The reference is: https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@xxxxxxxxx/ Thanks a lot! -- Sergey
