Re: Heads up: major rebase -i -p rework coming up

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [please do not forget to Cc: me; today is a slow day, so I did not miss 
>  your mail, but that is definitely not true on other days.]

This was spur of the moment idea, one that I wouldn't mind if you
would miss it.

But now that you have something interesting to say, I'll re-added
CC list for this thread.

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> 
>>>> Hmm.  You're right, that is not really intuitive.  How about
>>>> 
>>>>       merge (B) A # Merge...
>>>> 
>>>> instead?
>>> 
>>> Or even better:
>>> 
>>>         merge B parent A' # Merge...
>> 
>> merge B with A' # Merge... 
> 
> No, that does not catch the meaning.

Errr... I didn't mean for 'with' to mean 'into'.
 
> B is the _original_ merge commit.  So it actually knows what parents it 
> has, but we want to give the user the freedom to change those parents.
> 
> The first parent is easy: this will be HEAD at that stage.
> 
> The other parents will be relatively easy: just replace A' by something 
> else.
> 
> _However_ now that the merge commit B will be _redone_, we _still_ want to 
> be able to refer to it later in the rebase script.  Therefore, rebase has 
> to know that we _redid_ B at this stage.
> 
> Another idea:
> 
> 	merge B Merge bla/blub
> 	parent A' bla/blub

It would be good idea... even better if 'p' shortcut was not taken
by 'pick'...

This is similar to your earlier idea:

        merge 9383af1' was f39d50a Merge branch 'mh/unify-color' into next
        #   \ 9383af1 Revert previous two commits


Or perhaps:

	merge A' D' into B Merge bla/blub

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland