From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Heads up: major rebase -i -p rework coming up Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:35:39 -0800 Message-ID: <7vwscjceec.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <200901242347.23187.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 25 21:37:16 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LRBjH-0001Du-2S for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:37:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751394AbZAYUfr (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751373AbZAYUfr (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:47 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:35289 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751325AbZAYUfq (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764CF1D472; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CE1D1D470; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:41 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BE91D84C-EB1F-11DD-A8FE-BE78113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > So maybe I answered my question myself: > > merge parents $sha1 [$sha1...] original $sha1 $msg When you are reparenting, how would original commit get in the picture? You wouldn't want the resulting merge to claim it merged X (which would be what's in original's commit log) when in fact it now merged Y because the user reparented it, would you?