Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [...] > Let me ask a different but related question: If we add a > rebase-evil-merges mode, do you think that would be orthogonal to the > rebase-cousins mode? This is the question that I considered as well. To me they look orthogonal, and I'm afraid we will have hard times extending --rebase-merges gracefully in a backward-compatible manner. The set: --rebase-merges=remerge --rebase-merges=rebase --rebase-merges=off looks natural to me, but "cousins" that affect what is to be rebased (as opposed to how, if at all), will apparently get in the way. Besides, I recently ran into similar problem with --diff-merges (when|how) dichotomy, and there was no elegant solution found, even though a working one has been implemented, and then there were some discussions around. Also, I'm not quite sure that these "cousins" options make no sense when we in fact flatten history (--no-rebase-merges case). To me it looks like there should have been separate --[no-]rebase-cousins option, provided we do need this choice in the first place, but I definitely might be wrong here as well. As a side note, it sounds both unfair and confusing to use "rebase-evil-merges" term to describe a mode that will actually rebase (all the) merges, as neither a merge needs to be 'evil' to be the object of rebase operation, nor dedicated mode is necessarily needed to rebase specifically 'evil' merges (whatever they actually are.) Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
