From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0D8737AA64 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784300231; cv=none; b=E9zNJfhb2x+GvLzzzojimrMJpOHsffXuf3jWRKlD97sUfL1v7/ifvVJnSH8URj/1xHaWmzUDr+dM3DdTMBuupbBz6CZ2kmzljIiaU6G4CuhxZK3xymLtCRRREXEZrgvTJaEuwL7wDSMIdIXaDYRAe80oz9ig36IT3g7dq06E8A8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784300231; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LzG5Fh5cpp380jv0W3wuiKJs3LzSHdx9eKbiCWLOhws=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YtkwiZ0Hjm72r7Z+issNtBDEDoSCo8XOnZ5H8/nJOCUjVnLB7LX62zkDZpuNZkowTPqaELZy64yvKMB3Mn3M9pdLMoGB12tqgsE53CetZfqvPqrJfx6NB1D9EBANf+lM5/1tMgepGIeHGrq+iyo6BFXgiRhdWDylvlrh7gOD/GE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=d20ZByDL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=KEd/fEcj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="d20ZByDL"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="KEd/fEcj" Received: from phl-compute-07.internal (phl-compute-07.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C301914000F8; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-07.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:57:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1784300223; x=1784386623; bh=qlByg9lxXbUs/AmEGY5iCx/LwJoNN+OCuSR9Qmfk0uY=; b= d20ZByDLLk+DysW2AKhJb/D2u+Xj45KDSfq7cZnw92qjzExC2FA1IraA67MpFTVl r7UrqRRLCPSFPuFMvUy/9M7AeSTunulhlZroy9qfi9rend+mBd2EnZ6cLNTQeUek QwyoG/Q7ecxC67cxeHulsMg6q2Q8EzgZSpCmaerpTBaue88ihKkrz4JnJmjf2j7Z kbgkFLeMioNyNL+4mOaopWpF5zpH6KifUVoLfDNtjcybuntec8B9YdL/FBuBdedc nSX12O7yalKrOd7afi2hgnCxoyf3cjBdkogfdiKTp27eamZDnF9meMtslF02bo+O gtmYpTRHxnh1s/DzEHuI/A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1784300223; x= 1784386623; bh=qlByg9lxXbUs/AmEGY5iCx/LwJoNN+OCuSR9Qmfk0uY=; b=K Ed/fEcj2dBEv588Qr8pWVhQam8qLQY7gw/c+FsN3adO5i56MYzlJsjiu42rfRNLk sHqc4lH1aTIBTxxKqINHvrqhNY2fsRypPOHRQ/ewWzQofffy9taeMIqu/MLziTJJ VhwbC755qGL44XKndfv0r44ibI0LCJXMDSgLPPmE0AJvOmDXT7qmZD9DGnyLYrYx Q9uwzbfaYL1WtVQwdAMRYnSqFhYLbNWZNuDdvdGE8wvRQfl88V8rx+ExwAS24T2B QA1I03MOCmqJR7gb604TZ3G2axpBCCvV+m2nmQ8dFrfdse453e12hejoTLx+KuZG l0MEFNbzr26BWyNnl38yA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTE38zKTtQ/b/96VLTYLYoB9aIwZ4dDmfjQdk8qXOAcRsav5Car3W19sXVeUvNz8LJ 6xcG36njvF7f5v7nRZES5t3trrHT3cpZ0anF/5myfo6gaIl4IbJK//tjn+8/2qAXZaF1/a 4FeP8K6Dn9KquKAgM/NPZBDbR2fWHZpiyyOXaQRv6ENzSNdTT0F7wKeTGjjlgSobzhSbUc bIdBU53Xbv1//5UxQzDBYJtnEhIWwskVVlChOpHiIzvJHwCwpKC68tpMgC+uOtTlwKIKAL 1416B8EqWOZg2Qm8+nLlmW51qnV7Y2uCg8E+NI1EDnjkrMVicamC/kifoMajS1sz6rOmGw umwER1ZEQpstCq4+A3cNGvFICaLZ8TyEGz7y5kN9xfNlBP+f+b/0ph+jn32fyeYnzCcW6e UJ4a/xKdT7Nqt5aa64LBVXqDdibUOemQm6C/NdBk73PeuxLw60CjWivqTS8MrbQfDgfOL5 MRyW2WzvndGyhHHYvJGLP4cMdCFpJwHVEiyo7HalARRfLSso0CdIbYig8kzkNtxPQfBsvK qDUdGAGwX/aBe05N+MFZjTlFeMi/lHlhawwZoAfC01jN6+Sh6Bznv3mPU/IM8ZruBFnXUX PHz9pixDozWUK00Qh988ZLP9VECoXMbmn928PPrgJ3+vRDpfB7BJXRV+Ni6g X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:57:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Toon Claes , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] replay: offer an option to linearize the commit topology In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Wed, 15 Jul 2026 20:53:54 -0700") References: <20260707-toon-git-replay-drop-merges-v7-0-808ab9b4afa6@iotcl.com> <20260707-toon-git-replay-drop-merges-v7-3-808ab9b4afa6@iotcl.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 07:57:01 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Elijah Newren writes: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 11:49 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Elijah Newren writes: >> >> But if that is not the outcome they wanted, I fail to see why they >> would feed all three branches to a single invocation of --linearize >> in the first place. After all, the command is only doing what it >> was asked to do. > > Passing several branches isn't the user asking for concatenation; it's > the user asking for replay's core feature: update many branches at > once. Adding --linearize to flatten a merge does have to join the > lines which that merge combined, but it shouldn't also weld together > branches that were never merged in the first place. The user is > combining two intended features, and the concatenation is an emergent > third behavior that neither of them implies. I am not yet convinced by the above. * The fact that the user ran 'git replay' indicates that they want the command's core feature of updating multiple branches. * The fact that the user specified '--linearize' indicates that they want a linear history, regardless of the number of positive branch tips they gave. So from that point of view, I still think it reasonable to expect such a history to be linearized. In any case, I am not the primary audience for this new feature, and I have no desire to dictate the design one way or the other. Let us hear what the topic author has to say. I will mark the topic as "On hold, waiting for response". Thanks.