On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. Yeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to "replayed", so I changed it to "replayed". And yeah I can change it to something else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers. > 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. Ok, it's now "original algorithm". Thanks, Christian.
