From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Haberman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC] rebase-i-p: test to exclude commits from todo based on its parents Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:58:43 -0500 Organization: Exigence Message-ID: <20081008205843.bd6c297b.stephen@exigencecorp.com> References: <7vmyhfr1lb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, spearce@spearce.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 09 03:59:58 2008 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 1Knkom-0006hd-Qf for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:59:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751690AbYJIB6p (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:58:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753287AbYJIB6p (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:58:45 -0400 Received: from smtp142.sat.emailsrvr.com ([66.216.121.142]:53697 "EHLO smtp142.sat.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751595AbYJIB6p (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:58:45 -0400 Received: from relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B65A427B2AE; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay4.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: stephen-AT-exigencecorp.com) with ESMTP id 389BE27B07E; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:58:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <7vmyhfr1lb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > > +# And rebase G1..M1 onto E3 > > I think s/E3/E2/ is what you meant. Ah, yes. > If this is the first one in the series, you may want to mark these tests > with test_expect_failure and make a later patch that changes the behaviour > of rebase-i-p include updates to the test script to turn expect-failure > into expect-success. Sounds good, I will do that. I haven't seen any other feedback yet--should I repost the series with these two minor changes right now or wait and see if other feedback comes up? Thanks, Stephen