From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Haberman Subject: Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #02; Sun, 12) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:37:52 -0500 Organization: Exigence Message-ID: <20081013013752.8fc16695.stephen@exigencecorp.com> References: <20081012212543.GG4856@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 13 08:39:09 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 1KpH5A-0008Ur-H2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:39:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752886AbYJMGh5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:37:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752844AbYJMGh5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:37:57 -0400 Received: from smtp162.sat.emailsrvr.com ([66.216.121.162]:33814 "EHLO smtp162.sat.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752587AbYJMGh4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:37:56 -0400 Received: from relay6.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay6.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2693E1D4075; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay6.relay.sat.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: stephen-AT-exigencecorp.com) with ESMTP id 95C6E1D40DD; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:37:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20081012212543.GG4856@spearce.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: > * sh/maint-rebase3 (Sun Oct 5 23:26:52 2008 -0500) 1 commit > - rebase--interactive: fix parent rewriting for dropped commits > > A prior version of sh/rebase-i-p. This should be dropped. maint-rebase3 is actually a separate issue than sh/rebase-i-p. maint-rebase3 deals with commits dropped because they are recognized as cherry picks, while rebase-i-p deals with commits that can be ignored from the todo because their parents are not being changed. I'm surprised they both applied cleanly to pu--I was expecting a conflict, as I noted in one of my posts. I just fetched pu and they seem to have each broke the each other's tests as well. To fix this, I have some local changes to pu that gets both tests passing again. Should I submit my integration changes as a diff on top of pu? Or should I try and integrate the two patches into one series? Technically these two fixes are different things, and I assert you could apply one or the other, but if you apply both, they require integration, so I'm not sure what to do. (...nuts, t3404#22 is failing, so my maint3-rebase/rebase-i-p integration patch is not quite ready yet.) (I also have a test comment typo and test_expect_failure change to make to rebase-i-p from Junio's feedback and would like to know the preferred way to submit those--e.g. a patch on top of your pu, a patch on top of the existing series, or a new series all together. Given it is not next, I'm guessing a new series all together.) Thanks, Stephen