Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> [...] >> >> Yet another consequence is that my approach will likely result in better >> code reuse. > > This is a purely academic speculation. At least until

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Dear Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > [...] >> > >> > Where "easy" meant that I had to spend 1h still to figure out why >> > using

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 12/03/2018 11:20, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > [...] and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the > > > > changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about). > > > > > > Hmm, not following here, which

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > [...] > > > > Where "easy" meant that I had to spend 1h still to figure out why > > using the unrebased merge parents as merge bases. > > That's because you try to figure out

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > Hi Sergey, > > [...] > > > That is misrepresenting what happened. > > No, it's you who are spreading misinformation, probably unintentional, > but still. Way to go, Sergey.

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > [...] > > Yet another consequence is that my approach will likely result in better > code reuse. This is a purely academic speculation. At least until somebody implements Phillip's method. Oh wait, I already started to implement it, and

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Dscho, On 12/03/2018 11:20, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > [...] and cannot introduce ambiguities when rebasing the > > > changes introduced by M (i.e. the "amendmendts" we talked about). > > > > Hmm, not following here, which ambiguities are we talking about? > > U1' vs U2' of course.

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Dscho, On 11/03/2018 23:04, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > I`m yet to read (and reason about) your whole (very informative) > reply, but I just wanted to address this part first, as it might be a > clear end-game situation already, due to a mutual agreement, all the > rest being purely

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: [...] > The biggest difference is that it is easy for me to see the motivation > behind Phillip's strategy, whereas I am still puzzled why one would come > up with a complicated strategy that splits merge commits and

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: > Hi Dscho, [...] > I think the root of misunderstanding might be coming from the fact > that Sergey was mainly describing a general concept (without a > strictly defined implementation strategy, not being restricted to a >

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, [...] > That is misrepresenting what happened. No, it's you who are spreading misinformation, probably unintentional, but still. > First, you came up with a strategy. I pointed out shortcomings that > implied

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, Igor Djordjevic writes: [...] > That said, *if* we decide we like temporary commit U1' == U2' consistency > check (especially for non-interactive rebase, maybe), we can produce > these after the fact for the sake of the check only. I don't believe

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Sun, 11 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 11/03/2018 16:47, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > Having explained all this, I realized this is the same "essentially > > > merging the new tips into the original pretending that the new tips > > > were not rebased but merged into

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Dscho, I`m yet to read (and reason about) your whole (very informative) reply, but I just wanted to address this part first, as it might be a clear end-game situation already, due to a mutual agreement, all the rest being purely academic, interesting, but not any more (that) important to

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Dscho, On 11/03/2018 16:47, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > Phillip's method is essentially merging the new tips into the original > > > > merge, pretending that the new tips were not rebased but merged into > > > > upstream. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Here`s a starting point, two

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 08/03/2018 20:58, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > > > Phillip's method is essentially merging the new tips into the original > > > merge, pretending that the new tips were not rebased but merged into > > > upstream. > > > > [...] > > > >

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Buga, On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > On 07/03/2018 15:08, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > Didn't we settle on Phillip's "perform successive three-way merges > > > > between the original merge commit and the new tips with the old tips > > > > as base" strategy? > > > > >

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 08/03/2018 20:58, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > Phillip's method is essentially merging the new tips into the original > > merge, pretending that the new tips were not rebased but merged into > > upstream. > > [...] > > Here`s a starting point, two commits A and B, merged into M: > > (3)

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 08/03/2018 21:27, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > > git merge-recursive U1' -- M U2' > > tree="$(git write-tree)" > > # in case of original merge being octopus, we would continue like: > > # git merge-recursive $tree -- M U3' > > # tree="$(git write-tree)" > > # git

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

On 08/03/2018 20:58, Igor Djordjevic wrote: > > git merge-recursive U1' -- M U2' > tree="$(git write-tree)" > # in case of original merge being octopus, we would continue like: > # git merge-recursive $tree -- M U3' > # tree="$(git write-tree)" > # git

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, On 07/03/2018 15:08, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Didn't we settle on Phillip's "perform successive three-way merges > > > between the original merge commit and the new tips with the old tips > > > as base" strategy? > > > > It seems you did, dunno exactly why. > > That is

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> > > >>

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: >> > >> >> This is v2 of my "Rebasing merges" proposal.

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> This is v2 of my "Rebasing merges" proposal. > > > > Didn't we settle on Phillip's "perform successive three-way merges > >

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> This is v2 of my "Rebasing merges" proposal. > > Didn't we settle on Phillip's "perform successive three-way merges between > the original merge commit and the

Re: [RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi Sergey, On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > This is v2 of my "Rebasing merges" proposal. Didn't we settle on Phillip's "perform successive three-way merges between the original merge commit and the new tips with the old tips as base" strategy? It has the following advantages: - it

[RFC v2] Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)

Hi, This is v2 of my "Rebasing merges" proposal. Significant changes are: 1. Fixed mistake in the final merge step in the original proposal: wrong merge base was used. Thanks everybody who provided test-cases, and special thanks to Igor Djordjevic for