Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase

Sune Foldager cryo at cyanite.org
Mon Jun 20 05:34:24 CDT 2011


On 2011-06-20 10:55, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>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.

+1, this is an important point to emphasise, and it DOES happen in practice
(several times at my work, Edlund).

-Sune


More information about the Mercurial mailing list