On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:26 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi Jake,
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> > Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 12/04/18 23:02, Joh
Hi Jake,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> > Johannes Schindelin writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > [...]
> >>> >
> >>> > So: the ord
Hi Jacob,
Jacob Keller writes:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>>
>>> Hi Phillip,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>>
On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> So: the order of t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
>> Hi Phillip,
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [...]
>>> >
>>> > So: the order of the 3-way merges does matter.
>>> >
>>> > [...]
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Phillip,
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > So: the order of the 3-way merges does matter.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Those conflicts certainly look intimidating (and the ones in
Hi Jacob,
Jacob Keller writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Hi Jacob,
>>
>> Jacob Keller writes:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I've seen
nobody actually commented e
Hi Phillip,
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > So: the order of the 3-way merges does matter.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Those conflicts certainly look intimidating (and the ones in your later
> reply with the N way merge examp
On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Jake,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
Jacob Keller writes:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I
Hi Jake,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> wrote:
>
> > [... talking about nested merge conflicts ...]
> >
> > The only way out I can see is to implement some sort of "W merge" or
> > "chandelier merge" that can perform an N-way me
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi Jake,
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> >
>> > Jacob Keller writes:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> It was rathe
Hi Jake,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> >
> > Jacob Keller writes:
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> >>> It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I've seen
> >>> nobody actually c
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
>
> Jacob Keller writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>>> It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I've seen
>>> nobody actually commented either in favor or against the
>>> --rebase
Hi Sergey,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> >
> >> The RFC v2 and Phillip's strategy are essentially the same, as has been
> >> already shown multiple times, both theoretically and by testing.
> >
> > No,
Hi Johannes,
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>
>> The RFC v2 and Phillip's strategy are essentially the same, as has been
>> already shown multiple times, both theoretically and by testing.
>
> No, they are not.
It's off-topic here. If you
Hi Jacob,
Jacob Keller writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I've seen
>> nobody actually commented either in favor or against the
>> --rebase-merges.
>>
>> git rebase --rebase-merges
>>
>
> I'm going to jump
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> It was rather --recreate-merges just a few weeks ago, and I've seen
> nobody actually commented either in favor or against the
> --rebase-merges.
>
> git rebase --rebase-merges
>
I'm going to jump in here and say that *I* prefer --rebase-me
Hi Sergey,
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> The RFC v2 and Phillip's strategy are essentially the same, as has been
> already shown multiple times, both theoretically and by testing.
No, they are not.
I am really tired of repeating myself here, as I have demonstrated it at
length, a
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> >
>> >> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
>>
Hi Sergey,
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> >
> >> Johannes Schindelin writes:
> >>
> >> > Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
> >> > flatten branch structure, but instead
Hi Johannes,
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>>
>> > Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
>> > flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
>> > faithful
Hi Sergey,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
> > flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
> > faithfully.
>
> [...]
>
> > Think of --rebase-merges as "--pr
Hi Johannes,
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
> flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
> faithfully.
[...]
> Think of --rebase-merges as "--preserve-merges done right".
Both option names seem to miss t
Once upon a time, I dreamt of an interactive rebase that would not
flatten branch structure, but instead recreate the commit topology
faithfully.
My original attempt was --preserve-merges, but that design was so
limited that I did not even enable it in interactive mode.
Subsequently, it *was* ena
23 matches
Mail list logo
