Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase

Pierre-Yves David pierre-yves.david at
Mon Jun 20 03:55:56 CDT 2011

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:30:02PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> On Friday 17 June 2011 15:45:55 Sébastien Deleuze wrote:
> > I think this email fit in the current topic because I would like to emphasis
> > the fact that, even at first time rebaseif seems just a tiny exception with
> > a strange name, it is a major need for most users.
> I have to support that. I got exactly that complaint from two users: Why do I 
> need two commands?

Because it's two operations.

> What I’d prefer would be to have the extension checking if it can rebase or 
> merge without conflicts, and if it can’t, tell the user that it got a new head 
> which requires manual merging.

The tool can't decide if he can safely rebase. If (anon) branch A refactor
function "foobar" and (anon) branch B add code using (old) function "foobar",
you *can't* blindly rebase or merge anything. You won't have conflict but you
*do* need manual operation to get a proper merge//rebase.

You won't avoid being a responsible developer and check what you pulled before
doing anything with it.

Pierre-Yves David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Mercurial mailing list