Hi, [please do not forget to Cc: me; today is a slow day, so I did not miss your mail, but that is definitely not true on other days.] On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > >> Hmm. You're right, that is not really intuitive. How about > >> > >> merge (B) A # Merge... > >> > >> instead? > > > > Or even better: > > > > merge B parent A' # Merge... > > merge B with A' # Merge... No, that does not catch the meaning. B is the _original_ merge commit. So it actually knows what parents it has, but we want to give the user the freedom to change those parents. The first parent is easy: this will be HEAD at that stage. The other parents will be relatively easy: just replace A' by something else. _However_ now that the merge commit B will be _redone_, we _still_ want to be able to refer to it later in the rebase script. Therefore, rebase has to know that we _redid_ B at this stage. Another idea: merge B Merge bla/blub parent A' bla/blub Hmm? Ciao, Dscho
