Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Name the new option "drop" intead of "no" or "false" to avoid confusion This is traditionally called "flattening the history". Don't we confuse uesrs by introducing a new phrase? rebase-merges is about transplanting the history without flattening, i.e. keeping the mergy commit graph topology. If there are only two kinds of rebase (i.e. keeping the topology which is rebase-merges and the other "flattening" kind) operation, shouldn't the option be called "--no-rebase-merges" instead? --rebase-merges=no is also understandable. > in the future if --rebase-merges grows the ability to truly "rebase" > merge commits by reusing the conflict resolution information from the > original merge commit, and we want to add an option to ignore the > conflict resolution information. I am not sure why such a change "in the future" is not merely a bugfix of the current "--rebase-merges", though. Once it is fixed, is there a reason to make the fixed behaviour only available behind an option?
