W dniu 09.09.2016 o 17:12, Johannes Schindelin napisał:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> I was sort of expecting that, when you do the preserve-merges mode
>> of "rebase -i", you would need to jump around, doing "we have
>> reconstructed the side branch on a new 'onto', let's give the result
>> this temporary name ':1', and then switch to the trunk (which would
>> call for 'reset <commit>' instruction) and merge that thing (which
>> would be 'merge :1' or perhaps called 'pick :1')", and at that point
>> you no longer validate the object references upfront.
> Except that is not how --preserve-merges works: it *still* uses the SHA-1s
> as identifiers, even when the SHA-1 may have changed in the meantime.
> That is part of why it was a bad design.
When preserving merges, there are (as far as I understand it), two
- what it means to preserve changes (which change to pick,
that is what is the mainline changes rebase is re-applying)
- what are parents of the merge commit (at least one parent
would be usually rewritten)
Maybe the internal (and perhaps also user-visible) representation
of merge in instruction sheet could use the notation of filter-branch,
that is 'map(<sha-1>)'... it could also imply the mainline.
That is the instruction in the internal instruction sheet could
look like this:
merge -m 1 map(2fd4e1c67a2d28fced849ee1bb76e7391b93eb12)
da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 \t Merge 'foo' into master
Note that it has nothing to do with this series!