From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: 2.11-era rebase regression when @{upstream} is implicitly used
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:50:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bm355h6p.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190221141042.GA21737@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Feb 21 2019, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 02:23:04PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> This is not a 2.21 release issue, and pre-dates the built-in rebase.
>>
>> When you clone any repository, e.g. git.git, and add one commit on top
>> of the cloned branch, then run "git rebase" you'll get e.g.:
>>
>> $ git rebase
>> First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
>> Applying: foo
>>
>> Before 4f21454b55 ("merge-base: handle --fork-point without reflog",
>> 2016-10-12) you'd get:
>>
>> $ git rebase
>> Current branch master is up to date.
>
> I'm not entirely sure this is a regression, and not the patch bringing
> the behavior into line with what would happen when you _do_ have a
> reflog.
>
>> The results are not the same for "git rebase @{u}" or "git rebase $(git
>> rev-parse @{u})":
>
> Those aren't using "--fork-point", so they're going to behave
> differently. The default with no arguments is basically "--fork-point
> @{u}".
Yeah, that's what it *should* do, but it's not equivalent to using
--fork-point manually:
# my series on top of origin/master
$ git rev-parse HEAD
2a67977d3f70fa7fc4bce89db24a1218dc9ab2aa
# Junio's origin/master upstream
$ git rev-parse @{u}
35ee755a8c43bcb3c2786522d423f006c23d32df
# Where my fork point is
$ git merge-base --fork-point @{u}
35ee755a8c43bcb3c2786522d423f006c23d32df
# OK
$ git rebase 35ee755a8c43bcb3c2786522d423f006c23d32df
Current branch master is up to date.
# OK
$ git rebase $(git merge-base --fork-point @{u})
Current branch master is up to date.
# ???
$ git rebase
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-21 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-14 13:23 BUG: 2.11-era rebase regression when @{upstream} is implicitly used Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-21 14:10 ` Jeff King
2019-02-21 14:50 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2019-02-21 15:10 ` Jeff King
2019-02-21 21:40 ` [PATCH 0/2] rebase: fix 2.11.0-era --fork-point regression Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-21 21:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] rebase tests: test linear branch topology Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-22 14:53 ` Jeff King
2019-02-22 18:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-21 21:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] rebase: don't rebase linear topology with --fork-point Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-22 15:08 ` Jeff King
2019-02-22 16:49 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-24 10:10 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87bm355h6p.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.