Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote: >> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful >>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current >>> article. > > Just a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the "rebase -i: > offer to recreate merge commits" article written by Jake and not the > "branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article. > > That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues, > > 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the > ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article > > "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original > concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being > replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil" > merges." > > I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of > replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed'). It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author. While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept" by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself. -- Sergey
