Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi Buga, > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > >> I`m really interested in this topic, which seems to (try to) address the >> only "bad feeling" I had with rebasing merges - being afraid of silently >> losing amendments by actually trying to "replay" the merge (where >> additional and possibly important context is missing), instead of really >> "rebasing" it (somehow).
[...] > In short: while I am sympathetic to the desire to keep things simple, > the idea to somehow side-step replaying the original merge seems to be > *prone* to be flawed. The proposed (TM) solution does replay the original merge. > Any system that cannot accommodate dropped/changed/added commits on > either side of a merge is likely to be too limited to be useful. I believe the proposed (TM) solution handles all that nicely. It does accommodate dropped/changed/added commits on either side of a merge, symmetrically, and never silently drops user modifications. If you think (TM) is flawed, please give us a test-case. -- Sergey
