On 02/03/2018 17:00, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > It is interesting to think what it means to faithfully rebase a '-s
> > ours' merge. In your example the rebase does not introduce any new
> > changes into branch B that it doesn't introduce to branch A. Had it
> > added a fixup to branch B1 for example or if the topology was more
> > complex so that B ended up with some other changes that the rebase did
> > not introduce into A, then M' would contain those extra changes whereas
> > '--recreate-merges' with '-s ours' (once it supports it) would not.
> Unless the method of merging was stored, I don't think we *can*
> correctly automate resolving of "-s ours" because all we store is the
> resulting content, and we don't know how or why the user generated it
> as such. I believe the "correct" solution in any case would be to take
> the content we DO know and then ask the user to stop for amendments.
I agree with Jake, and for the exact same reasons.
That said, I`d like to see what mentioned '--recreate-merges' with
'-s ours' does (or would do, once it supports it), would you have a
pointer for me where to look at?
But if that`s something yet to come, might be it`s still open for
discussion. I mean, even this topic started inside original
`--recreate-merges` one, and hopefully it can still bring
improvements there (sooner or later).