Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase

[Sune Foldager]

On 2011-05-24 14:18, Na'Tosha Bard wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
>> I see it as a conservative estimate:
>>
>> * if 'hg merge' would produce an empty merge changeset, then do 'hg
>>  rebase' instead since no conflict resolution information is lost by
>>  doing that.
>>
>> * if 'hg merge' would require conflicts to be solved, then record them
>>  as a "proper" merge changeset.
>>
>
>Yes, this has been a really big issue for us and our desired workflow.  It
>would be really useful if there were some way to identify after the fact (in
>a way that code review tools can be modified to use) the "interesting"
>information from a merge changeset -- e.g, the result of conflict
>resolutions -- and filter out the rest because it is just "noise".  Showing
>this somehow after-the-fact for a rebase as well, would be ideal.

Would be great, and it's an instance of a general wish to be able to 'zoom
in' on changesets to see more internal development details. I'd really like
a feature like that. With the current model, though, it's not possible, and
you have to use merge to keep those details.

-Sune