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 6D792C636D6 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 21:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232445AbjBTVmG (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:42:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45830 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232005AbjBTVmF (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:42:05 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D78D1F91D for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id n20so1278488pfu.12 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:42:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mxbT4djABpwSo20guAxUdHWfW0qXg6cd1TAkRHnMt6M=; b=HKh/z6b1UggqxWHEEf1wwnkqeW3Yr9CcxGAzzObsosVDJru58ioocp+McY+kf6GW4F ltzNH4OycszmvZMY0r1Gjot1oI692hIG5P3yvwL0FbSEuQo5d88rL89Npe98F9pJ+XeP HkxbUviK4BkAI9hIQi7cB8NNVQei9pyvOOK+PYHSfZyGsq6HApsYtEzp/D5XueN35pzC jyChr3EQCqQX8C9M/Ag00RXyeyl4xJyLH5CWqGPg/07V2VZ1ySmyv2BO/OdF/+bZbwXp N3c4XuqED9GzyNgxq927y2zxMbekTNvJTEZ+VoRKyplnpSHYgKwt/JBQWZA6c47UjNDl lHhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mxbT4djABpwSo20guAxUdHWfW0qXg6cd1TAkRHnMt6M=; b=ZwLLRsPgw3I82pVvDdZLxY33iFMIs2TlyLP/YuJItBY4nXkPSWFYVtgWakZFp+iFL0 2KdbHt/KsvVGoIR1iJcw7qoNCSIFsSanEUR1ImRFBXLR4AgtiQeUihbLwkE5We5fxwyR fwbyeMhr5Qj3O7oQ9xkAHe3/dSbimreC4cLm0lP7Yf16fH7GXSEcIy495/tzbxoaR7nP 0qkZNJU6ngU/6pFMFVGpTAQ+ByQ7EoAMpebEX+TRFkE+AG4lQKKx+F0WT7ozHimHgU8I br0uz397KLr4p9pxRRNgslyHicpOQjStWmni8YIkKbEuT4AQIsJBl5KPyo3JsYJAi5RJ rwlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWP81e8DT7u3M+N/tigZmrY9xcbulKQLvTjVrp17DDxO17jGSIX l6L22vLW5gy36j3GUCWjdit6Sc3E9lo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9gjsyNcsyZ69EI+8/P75LL6HONf1qKHBgTWjybCQP6RLvUgr9GFoqYXcD5MRBSfZ6dEB0AEw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:1952:0:b0:5a8:4b70:885f with SMTP id 79-20020a621952000000b005a84b70885fmr3184951pfz.18.1676929323986; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (252.157.168.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.168.157.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y26-20020aa7855a000000b005941ff79428sm8363453pfn.90.2023.02.20.13.42.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:42:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Alex Henrie Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, tao@klerks.biz, newren@gmail.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rebase: add a --rebase-merges=drop option References: <20230220033224.10400-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:42:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20230220033224.10400-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> (Alex Henrie's message of "Sun, 19 Feb 2023 20:32:23 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Alex Henrie writes: > Name the new option "drop" intead of "no" or "false" to avoid confusion This is traditionally called "flattening the history". Don't we confuse uesrs by introducing a new phrase? rebase-merges is about transplanting the history without flattening, i.e. keeping the mergy commit graph topology. If there are only two kinds of rebase (i.e. keeping the topology which is rebase-merges and the other "flattening" kind) operation, shouldn't the option be called "--no-rebase-merges" instead? --rebase-merges=no is also understandable. > in the future if --rebase-merges grows the ability to truly "rebase" > merge commits by reusing the conflict resolution information from the > original merge commit, and we want to add an option to ignore the > conflict resolution information. I am not sure why such a change "in the future" is not merely a bugfix of the current "--rebase-merges", though. Once it is fixed, is there a reason to make the fixed behaviour only available behind an option?