Hi Johannes, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Thanks for explanations, and could you please answer this one: >> >> [...] >> >> >> I also have trouble making sense of "Recreate merge commits instead of >> >> flattening the history by replaying merges." Is it "<Recreate merge >> >> commits by replaying merges> instead of <flattening the history>" or is it >> >> rather "<Recreate merge commits> instead of <flattening the history by >> >> replaying merges>? > > I thought I had answered that one.
No, not really, but now you did, please see below. > > Flattening the history is what happens in regular rebase (i.e. without > --recreate-merges and without --preserve-merges). > > The idea to recreate merges is of course to *not* flatten the history. Sure. Never supposed it is. > Maybe there should have been a comma after "history" to clarify what the > sentence means. That's the actual answer to my question, but it in turn raises another one: why did you change wording of --preserve-merges description for this new option? > The wording is poor either way, but you are also not a native speaker so > we have to rely on, say, Eric to help us out here. Likely, but why didn't you keep original wording from --preserve-merges? Do you feel it's somehow poor either? Anyway, please also refer to wording suggestion in the another (lengthy) answer in this thread. -- Sergey
