Sergey Organov [off-list ref] writes:
You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your
teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method.
Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial
merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git
calls "trivial merge". The phrase has an established meaning in Git
and your attempt to abuse it to mean something entirely different is
adding unnecessary hindrance for other people to understand what you
want to perform.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Sergey Organov [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your
teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method.
Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial
merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git
calls "trivial merge". The phrase has an established meaning in Git
and your attempt to abuse it to mean something entirely different is
adding unnecessary hindrance for other people to understand what you
want to perform.
Agreed, I think we need better terminology here, the current words for
(TM) are definitely *not* trivial merges. Same for "angel merge", I
don't think that term really works well either.
The goal of the process is to split the merge apart to its components
for each side branch and then bring them back together after applying
them to the newly rebased branches.