On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:49:24AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Perhaps the right response is "grafts are broken, use git-replace > > instead". But then should we think about deprecating grafts? > > I am sort of surprised to hear that question, actually ;-) > > I didn't say that in the message you are responding to because I > somehow thought that everybody has been in agreement with these two > lines for a long while. Ever since I suggested the "replace" as an > alternative "grafts done right" and outlined how it should work to > Christian while sitting next to him in one of the early GitTogether, > the plan, at least in my mind, has always been exactly that: grafts > were a nice little attempt but is broken---if you really wanted to > muck with the history without rewriting (which is still discouraged, > by the way), do not use "graft", but use "replace".
I certainly had in the back of my mind that grafts were a lesser form of "replace", and that eventually we could get rid of the former. Perhaps my question should have been: "why haven't we deprecated grafts yet?". -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
