Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivar...@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
> On Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful
>>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current
>>> article.
> Just a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the "rebase -i:
> offer to recreate merge commits" article written by Jake and not the
> "branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article.
> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,
> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>       "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
>       concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
>       replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
>       merges."
> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').

It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author.

While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept"
by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the
algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.

-- Sergey

Reply via email to