From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB849C433F5 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:25:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353811AbiDSP2T (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:28:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1353806AbiDSP1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:27:25 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 751613B006 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id v133so12430131vsv.7 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aV2lG3+65TQRRxFa9wlPpbpvjlwBTJuyn2WWLRfsP7g=; b=QvbT3N0t7H2z2DAUOrD/46aXLuEIDXpnca4aj0BOMwdtSbxNAu8n7SmidF0MWX0ew0 2SeP2ylgYxEv3AmF5tYJWC75A21oklZCwN2i5iBl2rAkdH9iDC3t5fHQ80ic9SCmBq5f lL50lL0cc3hWjO8NYuIC3CWkhidln3JCBebDCgLkg4fUtMLK3IZ+/QOsPSDRE8jvgb1k XggRpUxs5atAC5DUQWFPMEmj2lSwOCvrHoPo/OvL+/coMpjBB9+/dCeNASClensT+jOo VhfmUu4y8uupl8IluUVG74bPFA0x3rOi/xsYLPytT79vgh7IxcVUphtIYSzwrrM7GcMA IkvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aV2lG3+65TQRRxFa9wlPpbpvjlwBTJuyn2WWLRfsP7g=; b=oo+kiJEWQt20pPtt09jRTCiGLPExYcBOxcIez5ULbU2G/tmBnQ35Rw5a4u2LQ/DKwd rqkxWGyHWEEHWTKJYjN/uWfXSAYA0zICcSxmk3ORpceC+DxkrPuTd95YWR0Ufv+P62Xd xsJSLq+wxh6ufkRC7AgNrdttMxDeCJVVOLIxxLholDsd1Dt9dr9DDHg9V1BQ02JHW6/O G8PZWfK+I8Intnz+ySaSpEHVbkkBs82rMc4ZZysG6OumjrsFWz2p85wCCEuCbLwXDTBL 7t70YBeC3ipRwl93bmofUrns3ekjpS90Bq2jLXr0Ob6F1UpwnHcszBk5JMz5che33uG2 Gc5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533w6lUBAJgihrB3bE71sVbPZGjBZ3+S7OVMMBbVy/KLnYnemaZg fbRQFTNOhnX2yHrA/LnOc9gbTspRarMfqa/xbHCafZZy9WU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQ4NH4ddRWBGiFK5IrF9kALpj/RrUgIolO4HLCVCiXWA3xfr99scyxDi4+rBTls65Pz4UrLHrzU45dZCf7p6s= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f842:0:b0:32a:492e:332e with SMTP id b2-20020a67f842000000b0032a492e332emr4413714vsp.47.1650381872570; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87h76qwd8a.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> In-Reply-To: <87h76qwd8a.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> From: Martin von Zweigbergk Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:24:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Current state / standard advice for rebasing merges without information loss/re-entry? To: Sergey Organov Cc: Tao Klerks , git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:25 AM Sergey Organov wrote: > > Tao Klerks writes: > > > Finally, Martin von Zweigbergk mentions his git-like VCS [5] which > > stores conflict data in some kinds of commit as part of a general > > "working state is always committable and auto-committed" > > state-management strategy; I may be misunderstanding something, but I > > *think* the resulting conflict-resolution information ends up being > > reusable in a manner theoretically equivalent to the strategy > > described by Buga as referenced above. > > I still think that Git got it right by *not* storing things like that > (e.g., renaming paths / moving contents), My VCS doesn't store that either. Maybe you're thinking of Darcs or Pijul? [1] explains what my VCS stores. FYI, [2] explains other benefits of first-class conflicts; being able to rebase merge commits is much less important than the other benefits, IMO (but it's still important). > so I'd still propose to > *rebase* merge *commits* as *content*, without any additional info being > used, if at all possible. Rebasing is about applying changes from some commit onto some other commit, as I'm sure you know. What Elijah and I are proposing is to consider the changes in the commit to be relative to the auto-merged parents (regardless of the number of parents - auto-merging a single parent commit just yields that commit), although I don't think Elijah phrased it that way. > As I wrote in the aforementioned discussion, > we should not confuse "merge-the-process" and "merge-the-result". It's > the latter, the commit, that should be rebased no matter what > particular process has been used to get to this commit, in accordance > with general Git philosophy. > > Besides, merge algorithms themselves are subjects to change, so a merge > performed 2 years ago might end-up being rather different when attempted > with a new algorithm today, rendering information stored from an old > algorithm useless. I agree with all of that. [1] https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/technical/conflicts.md [2] https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/conflicts.md