Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes: > On 2017-09-02 02:04, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >>> Anyway, this should really more explicitly say *what* you need to know >>> about, that is, reordering commits does not work. >> >> It tries to explain that, even with an example. If you have ideas for >> improving the wording, that would be welcome. > > As a first step, I indeed believe the wording must the stronger / clearer. > How about this: > > From f69854ce7b9359603581317d152421ff6d89f345 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:41:27 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] docs: use a stronger wording when describing bugs with > rebase -i -p > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > index 6805a74aec..ccd0a04d54 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > @@ -782,10 +782,11 @@ case" recovery too! > > BUGS > ---- > -The todo list presented by `--preserve-merges --interactive` does not > -represent the topology of the revision graph. Editing commits and > -rewording their commit messages should work fine, but attempts to > -reorder commits tend to produce counterintuitive results. > +Be careful when combining the `-i` / `--interactive` and `-p` / > +`--preserve-merges` options. Reordering commits will drop commits from the > +main line. This is because the todo list does not represent the topology of > the > +revision graph in this case. However, editing commits and rewording their > +commit messages 'should' work fine. > > For example, an attempt to rearrange > ------------
Anybody? I personally feel that the updated text is not all that stronger but it is clearer by clarifying what "counterintuitive results" actually mean, but I am not the target audience this paragraph is trying to help, nor I am the one who is making excuse for a known bug, so...
