On 02/03/18 23:33, Igor Djordjevic wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:36 AM, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>>> It is interesting to think what it means to faithfully rebase a '-s
>>>> ours' merge.
>>> I should have explained that I mean is a faithful rebase one that
>>> adheres to the semantics of '-s ours' (i.e. ignores any changes in the
>>> side branch) or one that merges new changes from the side branch into
>>> the content of the original merge? In your example you add B4 to B. If
>>> M' preserves the semantics of '-s ours' then it will not contain the
>>> changes in B4. I think your result does (correct me if I'm wrong) so it
>>> is preserving the content of the original merge rather than the
>>> semantics of it.
> Yeah, I understood what you mean, and I see you noticed that B4 
> commit, for which I did anticipate possibly bringing up a discussion 
> like this ;)
> I agree with Jake here, my thoughts exactly (what I wrote in that 
> other subthread[1], too):
> On 02/03/2018 17:02, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> We only have the content, and we don't know the semantics (nor, I
>> think, should we attempt to understand or figure out the semantics).
> Hmm, I wanted to elaborate a bit here, but that sentence seems to 
> summarize the pure essence of it, and whatever I write looks like 
> just repeating the same stuff again...
> That`s just it. And stopping to give the user a chance to 
> review/amend the result, where he might decide he actually did want 
> something else - so all good.
> Otherwise, I would be interested to learn how context/semantics 
> guessing could provide a better default action (without introducing 
> more complexity for might not be much benefit, if any).

I don't think its possible to guess the semantics of the original merge
as users can use custom merge strategies and amend the result. It would
be possible to detect and unamended '-s ours' merge but special casing
that may end up causing users more confusion rather than helping them.

> But in the end, I guess we can just discuss the "most sane default" 
> to present to the user (introduce or obsolete that new commit B4, in 
> the discussed example[2]), as we should definitely stop for amending 
> anyway, not proceeding automatically whenever U1' != U2'.

I can see the reason for that but I'm concerned that it might get
annoying with an interactive rebase as it would stop whenever one of the
commits on a topic branch that is a parent of a merge gets amended.
(squashing and reordering existing commits on a topic branch would be OK

> Oh, and what about situations where we introduce new or drop existing 
> branches (which should be possible with new `--recreate-merges`)...? 
> "Preserving old branch semantics" may have even less sense here - the 
> (possibly heavily reorganized) content is the only thing we have, 
> where context will (and should) be provided by the user.

In this scheme there is now way to change the parents of a merge so
preserving the old branch sementics is well defined. If the user wants
to change the parents of the merge then this scheme wont help them.

> And I guess being consistent is pretty important, too - if you add 
> new content during merge rebase, it should always show up in the 
> merge, period. 

Yes, that should make it easy for the user to know what to expect from

> It seems pretty confusing to find out one of the 
> branches "declared special" (even more if it`s based on uncertain 
> guess-work), so when you add something to it it`s just "swallowed", 
> as the whole branch is always obsoleted, for now and ever.
> I might even see a value in such behavior, but only as a conscious 
> user action, not something done automatically... I guess? :)
> Regards, Buga
> [1] 
> https://public-inbox.org/git/f26cdbe2-1bc3-02ff-7b99-12a6ebab5...@gmail.com/
> [2] 
> https://public-inbox.org/git/f1a960dc-cc5c-e7b0-10b6-39e551665...@gmail.com/

Reply via email to