Fixing rebase rather than avoiding it

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:17:47AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Óscar Fuentes, and lo! it spake thus:
> Ben Finney <ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
> >>
> >> 2 Fix bug #234 (merge)
> >> 1.1.1 Fix bug #234
> >> 1 Whatever
> >
> > The changes that were actually made on that branch, in distinct
> > revisions as they were made and viewed by the person committing them.
> 
> Revision 2 is identical to revision 1.1.1

Then why would you have to rebase it, instead of just sticking it on
the head of the branch as-is?

You'd only need to rebase if there were already a 2.  But then 1.1.1
HAS important imformation that the putative '3' merge wouldn't; it
knows that it came from 1 rather than 2.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.