From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.148]) (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 98C5323EAAE for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 23:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765321359; cv=none; b=rO9qcrLF25OYn9G+dZ1GzRQWiE+3+iruJDPNxoNWpQp31f0gAiNJJOr2Zke4BHAD9SmvTf0PM2ioNTfDCVl18W4VTONBJtJ6kP2qx8uHAU+y7RfYoVjpYBcwnrAjooGiCpGPgZHKSt7tBre6xl69KgEVVlOn9j3TYe/OAtF5Vu8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765321359; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KP9htklFH48+fmxmQofhq0skPf5/nqjpqtqZMfnRZmU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JYn3krjFXSjebnzSsJjKxrjDBZhbdEgN+uL7uCXk8qykf7kzb0WE7A9hNr8dFP3jGPsAfFk16RZMVEqfvRLgzMi9BAaVgieiuuQ96NdrFaSlJZpPHNl96ehFdhyq5i42eh/NDbOhjqEN2YGiIwz97gs9+d+ZoO6dw2N5wpIHyU0= 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=QOnmdD1/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=en5B9Qfw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 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="QOnmdD1/"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="en5B9Qfw" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42D41D000B5; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 18:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Dec 2025 18:02:36 -0500 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=fm3; t=1765321356; x=1765407756; bh=luQ+8TXx5Qv/cdI9brEx6YAq79gXxZje4GKMF2ySeS4=; b= QOnmdD1/lieRes6SUqSlk5wgIf2xEaxKXFqV6HCoh9DS/ayw66Ttxo2+rryx6vIZ 9gydlDwNIinqWoiXF9VTtm94ly0bGMKvzsR6qE4DAc3p0oj9XBsGLd7xl+tBxHp2 MYJx2RPkRqudbf42dR3vDXTkkOS6C9dyINcg3Taj5ICNAJJhzsrKaiEv7EIUEZoK 2qRpP36S/dw8dnJ8WFdKjT54bngsjPFb586L99kirRwZNa8AyOpxAbVf5ro9Oblq qJJ4HUIVGleCEOyBRWqGbn4wxmgqsZ15ju/vH20YMxRPTuvTXplV4uxAHe7r1F/H 0lbTHH9mHt92LwEe3wVL3w== 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=fm1; t=1765321356; x= 1765407756; bh=luQ+8TXx5Qv/cdI9brEx6YAq79gXxZje4GKMF2ySeS4=; b=e n5B9Qfw67RhXjOGeCGK16/PUk8swc3Oc95Es2oulFF6tf+D/YKF6yhoxGE+mS7RM GE4pUzKquwkvxBuokAfWsynT6xzntEufm7A82ybxnpvFXjXoA4LnrhXqW6GzC/II 5JBmgk/loMmMmfRkmsCw5fBnc0XVJZ0eRyBRtNs/q+6kEFqga7YprhvFu3PzPFIs rvmP/D3opXlymt9UoqoaXlCRM8jiRtoGv/L4kk2PjsbHNToY2fc4DYztBuS9k4AR farYMaZC/yzXGOGHXyBI3XN9ik7noMjGENLenpvx7XfnnrQByLjA9To+aw95ytRA CtXdFT4BRqmFxwnw2PIlQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddvtdekvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtgfesthekredttderjeenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnheptdffvdetgedvtdekteefveeuveelgfekfeehiefgheevhedvkeehleevveef tdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfh grshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdr ohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegtohguvgeskhhhrghughhssggrkhhkrdhnrghmvgdprhgtph htthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuuggvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphht thhopehnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsihguughhrghrth hhrghsthhhrghnrgefudesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghr sehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 18:02:36 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" , "Christian Couder" , "Elijah Newren" , "Siddharth Asthana" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] doc: replay: improvements like "mention no output on conflicts" In-Reply-To: <753daaa4-e675-4d28-9c13-4f5ede0f3b47@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:05:02 +0100") References: <753daaa4-e675-4d28-9c13-4f5ede0f3b47@app.fastmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:02:34 +0900 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 "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" writes: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025, at 13:41, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>> All looked sensible. >>>> >>>> The second one looked a bit sketchy, but that was the phrase used by >>>> the log message for c4611130 (replay: add --contained to rebase >>>> contained branches, 2023-11-24). >>> >>> How should `--contained` be documented? >> >> The text you added uses exactly the phrase used by the log message, >> so the author of the feature apparently felt it is good enough ;-). >> >> It just felt that "contained in " is understandable >> enough. > > “is [not]” presumably. Actually, s/It felt/I was unsure/;-). >> master..next? If it is the former, is it because the topmost >> commit (i.e., the commit pointed at by the branch reference) is >> the only thing that counts, and it indeed is master..next? > > It’s a somewhat complex case compared to what I think is the usual one: > a non-merge range of commits without any patch-id-equivalents on the > target (fingers crossed). And the setup without merges: two topic > branches in the range gives the output I expect: > > git replay --contained --onto=target2 > update > update > > I think the original phrasing is understandable. But we could add > an example. > > For example, if the range contains five commits where a branch > points to the newest commit and another branch points to the third > commit ... Alternatively, you can explicitly refer to "the tip of the branch"; that phrasing will be understood by people from both camps. Those who considers that a "branch" consists of the commits between the fork point and its tip, and those who thinks a "branch" is a fancy name attached to one particular commit in the DAG that can move around (typically forward). Those branches whose tips are within the range are updated.