From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Cc: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] rebase no longer omits local commits
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:56:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbnt1dpdk.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140703222501.GF13153@serenity.lan> (John Keeping's message of "Thu, 3 Jul 2014 23:25:02 +0100")
John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
> Perhaps we shuld do something like this (which passes the test suite):
>
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
> index 06c810b..0c6c5d3 100755
> --- a/git-rebase.sh
> +++ b/git-rebase.sh
> @@ -544,7 +544,8 @@ if test "$fork_point" = t
> then
> new_upstream=$(git merge-base --fork-point "$upstream_name" \
> "${switch_to:-HEAD}")
> - if test -n "$new_upstream"
> + if test -n "$new_upstream" &&
> + ! git merge-base --is-ancestor "$new_upstream" "$upstream_name"
> then
> upstream=$new_upstream
> fi
> -- 8< --
>
> Since the intent of `--fork-point` is to find the best starting point
> for the "$upstream...$orig_head" range, if the fork point is behind the
> new location of the upstream then should we leave the upstream as it
> was?
Probably; but the check to avoid giving worse fork-point should be
in the implementation of "merge-base --fork-point" itself, so that
we do not have to do the above to both "rebase" and "pull --rebase",
no?
> I haven't thought through this completely, but it seems like we should
> be doing a check like the above, at least when we're in
> "$fork_point=auto" mode.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-07 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-03 15:14 [BUG] rebase no longer omits local commits Ted Felix
2014-07-03 19:09 ` John Keeping
2014-07-03 22:25 ` John Keeping
2014-07-07 17:56 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-07-07 21:14 ` John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] rebase--am: use --cherry-pick instead of --ignore-if-in-upstream John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:48 ` Ted Felix
2014-07-15 22:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-16 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] rebase--am: use --cherry-pick instead of --ignore-if-in-upstream John Keeping
2014-07-16 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point John Keeping
2014-07-16 20:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-16 21:27 ` John Keeping
2014-07-16 21:36 ` Ted Felix
2014-07-17 9:36 ` John Keeping
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=xmqqbnt1dpdk.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=ted@tedfelix.com \
/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.