Web lists-archives.com

Re: RFC: rebase inconsistency in 2.18 -- course of action?

Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> In short, while interactive-based and merge-based rebases handle
> directory rename detection fine, am-based rebases do not.  This
> inconsistency may frustrate or surprise users.

FWIW, I actually do not quite think it is universally a good idea to
infer that I would have added the path X/F I added to my branch at
Y/F instead if I were on vacation while somebody else first moved
other paths X/A, X/B, etc. to Y/A, Y/B, etc., and I would even
imagine that I would be frustrated if my X/F, which the somebody
else wasn't even aware of, were moved to Y/F without even telling
me.  So in that sense, doing such extra and unasked-for "moves"
during a rebase may be a bug, not a feature.

In any case, I think I'll have to delay -rc2 by a few days to catch
up, so I won't be looking at any topic (including this one) that is
not about 2.18-rc regressions for a few days.  Please do not get
upset if people with RFC patches do not hear from me until the