From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com>,
John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:14:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01d69c566e04256fb0321ab9685d1f05a80cb41d.1405451643.git.john@keeping.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47e67c62fb2a8c8846f5d3a12d71aebf8fa875d7.1405451643.git.john@keeping.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <47e67c62fb2a8c8846f5d3a12d71aebf8fa875d7.1405451643.git.john@keeping.me.uk>
When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed
the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from
which we want to rebase. When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does
not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream
we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with
changes in $upstream..$orig_head.
Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using
this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so
that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode):
git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \
$upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point
This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the
following topology:
C --- D --- E <- dev
/
B <- master@{1}
/
o --- B' --- C* --- D* <- master
where:
- B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B;
- C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict
textually if applied in the wrong order;
- E depends textually on D.
The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as
the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that
need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C*
and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is:
o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E <- dev
If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch
containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits
are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D
(or equivalently D*) results in a conflict.
This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we
either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the
patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the
patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten.
Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix.com>
Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
---
git-rebase--am.sh | 6 ++++--
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 2 +-
git-rebase.sh | 7 ++++---
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--am.sh b/git-rebase--am.sh
index 902bf2d..f923732 100644
--- a/git-rebase--am.sh
+++ b/git-rebase--am.sh
@@ -45,14 +45,16 @@ then
# itself well to recording empty patches. fortunately, cherry-pick
# makes this easy
git cherry-pick ${gpg_sign_opt:+"$gpg_sign_opt"} --allow-empty \
- --right-only "$revisions"
+ --right-only "$revisions" \
+ ${restrict_revision+^$restrict_revision}
ret=$?
else
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/rebased-patches"
git format-patch -k --stdout --full-index --cherry-pick --right-only \
--src-prefix=a/ --dst-prefix=b/ --no-renames --no-cover-letter \
- "$revisions" >"$GIT_DIR/rebased-patches"
+ "$revisions" ${restrict_revision+^$restrict_revision} \
+ >"$GIT_DIR/rebased-patches"
ret=$?
if test 0 != $ret
diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
index 7e1eda0..b64dd28 100644
--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh
+++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
@@ -963,7 +963,7 @@ else
fi
git rev-list $merges_option --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit \
--abbrev=7 --reverse --left-right --topo-order \
- $revisions | \
+ $revisions ${restrict_revision+^$restrict_revision} | \
sed -n "s/^>//p" |
while read -r shortsha1 rest
do
diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 06c810b..55da9db 100755
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git rebase --skip" instead.
To check out the original branch and stop rebasing, run "git rebase --abort".')
"
unset onto
+unset restrict_revision
cmd=
strategy=
strategy_opts=
@@ -546,7 +547,7 @@ then
"${switch_to:-HEAD}")
if test -n "$new_upstream"
then
- upstream=$new_upstream
+ restrict_revision=$new_upstream
fi
fi
@@ -572,7 +573,7 @@ require_clean_work_tree "rebase" "$(gettext "Please commit or stash them.")"
# and if this is not an interactive rebase.
mb=$(git merge-base "$onto" "$orig_head")
if test "$type" != interactive && test "$upstream" = "$onto" &&
- test "$mb" = "$onto" &&
+ test "$mb" = "$onto" && test -z "$restrict_revision" &&
# linear history?
! (git rev-list --parents "$onto".."$orig_head" | sane_grep " .* ") > /dev/null
then
@@ -626,7 +627,7 @@ if test -n "$rebase_root"
then
revisions="$onto..$orig_head"
else
- revisions="$upstream..$orig_head"
+ revisions="${restrict_revision-$upstream}..$orig_head"
fi
run_specific_rebase
--
2.0.1.472.g6f92e5f.dirty
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-15 19:15 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
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 ` John Keeping [this message]
2014-07-15 19:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point 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=01d69c566e04256fb0321ab9685d1f05a80cb41d.1405451643.git.john@keeping.me.uk \
--to=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).