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?".
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