From: "Philip Oakley" <>
> From: "Christian Couder" <>
>> The replaced object and the replacement object must be of the same
>> type.
>> -There is no other restriction on them.
>> +This restriction can be bypassed using `-f`.
>> Unless `-f` is given, the 'replace' reference must not yet exist.
>> +There is no other restriction on the replaced and replacement
>> objects.
> Is this trying to allude to the fact that merge commits may be
> exchanged with non-merge commits? I strongly believe that this ability
> to exchange merge and non-merge commits should be stated _explicitly_
> to counteract the false beliefs that are listed out on the internet.

Maybe we can show that in an example. But I think the patch is quite
clear as it is and should be enough.

If we really want to correct some false beliefs, the best would be to
state the truth where those false beliefs are stated.

> It's probably better stated in a separate patch for that explicit
> purpose to avoid mixed messages within this commit.

If people agree, I will add a another patch with an example in an
EXAMPLE section.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to