In light of https://github.com/treeverse/lakeFS/issues/7347, what is you guys’ opinion of flipping the table on

Branch.merge()

? I think it would align more with expectations if

b.merge(other)

resulted in a merge of

other

into the branch

b

- it would also then be very natural to return the merge commit, as it is simply the new HEAD of

b

.

Hi @Nicholas Junge, While I agree that the revert issue raises a valid point about returning the new commit ID, I believe it's separate from the current discussion about merging

other

into

b

. Perhaps we can address them independently to avoid confusion by opening a new issue. As I see it calling a method

merge

on a receiver

b

means merge into

b

(argument

other

will be the "from")