Hi Kuba,

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:

> Hello Johannes,
> 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
> problems:
>  - 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!

Right. But I did solve that already. In the Git garden shears [*1*]
(essentially my New And Improved attempt at recreating branch structures
while rebasing), I generate and process scripts like this:

        mark onto

        # Branch: super-cool-feature
        rewind onto
        pick 00001 feature
        pick 00002 documentation
        mark super-cool-feature

        # Branch: typo-fix
        rewind onto
        pick 0000a fix a tyop

        rewind onto
        merge -C cafebabe super-cool-feature
        merge -C babecafe typo-fix

        cleanup super-cool-feature typo-fix

Of course this will change a little, still, once I get around to implement
this on top of the rebase--helper.

For example, I am not so hot about the "merge -C ..." syntax. I'll
probably split that into a "remerge <SHA-1> <mark>" and a new "merge
<mark>" command (the latter asking interactively for the merge commit

And also: the cleanup stage should not be necessary, as the "mark"
commands can accumulate the known marks into a file in the state

But you get the idea.

No :1 or some such. That's machine readable. But it's utter nonsense for
user-facing UIs.


Footnote *1*:

Reply via email to