From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink Subject: Re: [BUG] git-rebase fails when a commit message contains a diff Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:31:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20071111223134.GA12699@atjola.homenet> References: <20071109011214.GA5903@diku.dk> <7vlk98xkm3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vhcjwxk1s.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v640cxitc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v1wb0xhxq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Jonas Fonseca , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 11 23:31:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IrLLN-0004Sg-UY for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:31:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755552AbXKKWbj convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:31:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755532AbXKKWbj (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:31:39 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59911 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755268AbXKKWbi (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:31:38 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2007 22:31:35 -0000 Received: from i577B84F1.versanet.de (EHLO localhost) [87.123.132.241] by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 11 Nov 2007 23:31:35 +0100 X-Authenticated: #5039886 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1946FgWksJ4IMcO2LODJWRqzDhCPeeQs1Xcrghm9x ULJErfD7a4b8pb Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1wb0xhxq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2007.11.08 18:37:37 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: >=20 > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I wonder if this is a sensible thing to do, regardless of the issu= e of=20 > >> commit log message that contains anything. > >>=20 > >> The patch replaces git-rebase with git-rebase--interactive. The o= nly=20 > >> difference from the existing "git-rebase -i" is if the command is = called=20 > >> without "-i" the initial "here is the to-do list. please rearrange= the=20 > >> lines, modify 'pick' to 'edit' or whatever as appropriate" step is= done=20 > >> without letting the user edit the list. > > > > Hmm. I don't know, really. I had the impression that the "git=20 > > format-patch | git am" pipeline would be faster. >=20 > Heh, I did not read rebase--interactive carefully enough. >=20 > Unless told to use merge with "rebase -m", rebase replays the > change by extracting and applying patches, and speed comparison > was about that vs merge based replaying; I thought make_patch > was done in order to avoid using cherry-pick (which is based on > merge-recursive) and doing patch application with three-way > fallback. Apparently that is not what "interactive" does. >=20 > Perhaps pick_one () could be taught to perform the 3-way > fallback dance git-am plays correctly. The patch I sent to make > git-rebase--interactive take over git-rebase would then become > quite reasonable, I would think. Note that git-rebase--interactive also doesn't really support the --strategy parameter which git-rebase handles using git-merge-* instead of git-am. Only merge commits during a -i -p run actually apply the strategy. Bj=F6rn