From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase -i -p: doesn't pick certain merge commits that are children of "upstream" Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:30:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4DF64932.1090607@sohovfx.com> References: <4DEB495F.9080900@kdbg.org> <1307419725-4470-1-git-send-email-andrew.kw.w@gmail.com> <1307419725-4470-2-git-send-email-andrew.kw.w@gmail.com> <7vmxhlpvob.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Wong , git@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Haberman To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 13 19:30:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWAyE-0006X0-ET for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:30:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754599Ab1FMRad (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:30:33 -0400 Received: from smtp04.beanfield.com ([76.9.193.173]:56813 "EHLO smtp04.beanfield.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753631Ab1FMRac (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:30:32 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No X-beanfield-mta04-MailScanner-From: andrew.w@sohovfx.com X-beanfield-mta04-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.9, required 6, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90) X-beanfield-mta04-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-beanfield-mta04-MailScanner-ID: 1QWAy3-0009ZT-3G Received: from [66.207.196.114] (helo=[192.168.1.112]) by mta04.beanfield.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QWAy3-0009ZT-3G; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:30:27 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101026 SUSE/3.0.10 Thunderbird/3.0.10 In-Reply-To: <7vmxhlpvob.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 06/13/2011 12:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > There is no title to this test? > Ah, that's embarrassing. I'll fix that. Thanks! > In general I think it is wrong to change behaviour depending on which > parent of a merge we are looking at (unless of course the user tells us > to, like "git log --first-parent"), so in that sense philosophically I > think the patch is going in the right direction, but I do worry about > potential regressions. > I totally agree. Ever since Jeff brought up this issue, I've been wondering what issue/workflow is that patch trying to fix. If the "todo" list doesn't change the parent of the merge commits, git should be able to do a fast-forward on the merge, which means the merge won't be rewritten anyway. Just a wild guess: maybe back then, git will actually rewrite the merge regardless? Anyway, let's wait for a reply from Stephen.