Hi, On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> But instead you are thinking of letting me just say "X", and somehow > >> make the machinery guess by noticing "Ah, original X is a merge between > >> original A and B, and we have a merge between rewritten A and rewritten > >> B, so we will treat that merge as rewritten "X"? > >> > >> I actually was hoping we could avoid that, which feels messy. > > ... > > But this got me thinking, and I think that to leave out the first parent > > was another mistake I made, so I really would like to have this syntax: > > > > merge <orig-commit> <parent1> <parent2>... <message> > > > > This would allow to change the parents in the interactive rebase, and if > > <parent1> is not the current commit at that point, it would implicitly > > call "reset". > > > > What appeals to me is the simplicity of this approach: you refer to the > > commits by calling them by their (original) name. > > Ok, that clears my confusion, but it raises another issue. > > In the context of "rebase -i", this may not be a problem, but by forcing > us to name commits always with original commits, we cannot build (instead > of rebuild) a history that does not yet exist using the sequencer > machinery, can we? The idea I hinted at was to refer to them by another name than the short name. Then we can use the sequencer machinery. I still maintain that it is such a rare need (even if you are a power user of it) that it makes sense to cater for other, simpler uses. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
