Am 02.09.21 um 16:18 schrieb Johannes Schindelin: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> A good goal. There is no remaining use case where (a fictitious and >> properly working version of) "--preserve-merges" option cannot be >> replaced by "--rebase-merges", is it? I somehow had a feeling that >> the other Johannes (sorry if it weren't you, j6t) had cases that the >> former worked better, but perhaps I am mis-remembering things. > > I think that I managed to address whatever concerns there were about the > `--rebase-merges` backend in the meantime. That was either my suggestion/desire to make no-rebase-cousins the default. That has been settled. Or my wish not to redo the merge, but to replay the first-parent difference. The idea never got traction, and I've long since abandoned my implementation of it. > To be honest, I developed one (minor) concern in the meantime... Should we > maybe try to be nicer to our users and keep handling the > `--preserve-merges` option by explicitly erroring out with the suggestion > to use `--rebase-merges` instead? Not everybody reads release notes, after > all. In fact, it is my experience that preciously few users have the time > to even skim release notes... A valid concern, I would think. -- Hannes
