On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Replayed is accurate. Thanks, Jake
