[1718627440]

So you essentially do a fast-forward until the first commit with a merge commit and then take the previous one?

Sounds like something that could also become a flag for git merge.

[riwsky]

No. The GP making a commit off of the first non-conflict isn’t the essence of the feature he’s talking about, just an example of what he can do next.

He’d also be free to edit upstream to not commit, or split a change in two so that parts unrelated to the conflict are in their own change. The big idea is that he doesn’t need to blindly decide that before seeing what the conflict is.

[steveklabnik]

Git won’t let the portion of the branch that’s still conflicted remain in conflict while you go and work on the other part.

[1718627440]

I would just abort the conflict resolution.

[steveklabnik]

Then you’re back to the state before the rebase. Which is fine, the point is just that they’re not equivalent!

[1718627440]

Yes. What's the equivalent would be to just keep the successfully rebased part. Right now you need to do keep the ref yourself.

> Sounds like something that could also become a flag for git merge.