Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:46 +0900, Junio wrote: > >> We haven't seen much complaints and breakages reported against the >> two big "rewrite in C" topics around "rebase"; perhaps it is a good >> time to merge them to 'next' soonish to cook them for a few weeks >> before moving them to 'master'? > > In my opinion, the `--rebase-merges' feature has been broken since the > beginning, and the builtin version should be fixed before it is moved > ahead. I'll omit the remainder of the message not because I disagree with your suggested improvements to "rebase-merges" (that conversation should happen primarily with Dscho), but because I need to react to the above three lines. If "rebase-merges" has been broken since the beginning, as long as the "rewrite in C" topics around "rebase" do not make it even worse, I do not think it is a good move to block the topics moving forward. If the feature were so broken that it is not practically useful, then people wouldn't be using it in the versions of Git before the rewrite, so it won't harm anybody if the same feature in the rewritten version is equally (or even more severely) broken, as long as the other parts of the feature works at least equally well compared to the older version. We are not in the business of hostage taking. What *should* block the rewrited version is a regression, i.e. something that used to work well no longer works or works differently in such a way that established workflows need to be adjusted. In any case, suggestions to improve "rebase-merges" is a very much welcome thing to be discussed on the list, so thanks for raising the issue. What I wanted to say is that I do not think that is a reason to keep "rewrite in C" waiting in 'pu'.
