From: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
To: Alex Torok <alext9@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: find --fork-point with full ref
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:48:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191206014828.GB16183@generichostname> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191205235704.31385-3-alext9@gmail.com>
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 06:57:04PM -0500, Alex Torok wrote:
> rebase --fork-point needs to look up the full ref name before calling
> get_fork_point in the same manner that merge-base --fork-point does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Torok <alext9@gmail.com>
> ---
> builtin/rebase.c | 4 +++-
> t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> index e755087b0f..821994f676 100644
> --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> @@ -1980,8 +1980,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> struct commit *head =
> lookup_commit_reference(the_repository,
> &options.orig_head);
> + char * full_name;
nit: * should be attached to the variable name.
> + dwim_ref_or_die(options.upstream_name, strlen(options.upstream_name), &full_name);
Also, thinking about this more, would it be possible to put the dwim_ref
logic into get_fork_point() directly? There are currently only these two
callers so I suspect it should be fine and it'll result in cleaner
logic.
We could also squash it down into one patch.
> options.restrict_revision =
> - get_fork_point(options.upstream_name, head);
> + get_fork_point(full_name, head);
> }
>
> if (repo_read_index(the_repository) < 0)
> diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> index 78851b9a2a..6ecdae918e 100755
> --- a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> +++ b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --no-fork-point --onto D
> test_rebase 'G F C B A' --no-fork-point --keep-base
> test_rebase 'G F E D B A' --fork-point refs/heads/master
> test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D refs/heads/master
> +test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D master
It's not obvious why this was failing in the first place. Perhaps we
could document it better in the commit message?
Maybe something like:
We used to pass in the upstream_name directly into the
get_fork_point() machinery. However, get_fork_point() was
expecting a fully qualified ref name even though most users use
the short name for branches. This resulted in `--fork-point` not
working as expected since, without the full ref name, the reflog
lookup would fail and it would behave as if we weren't passing
in `--fork-point` at all.
Also, I'm not why this test case in particular that was duplicated (and
not the one above) given that the first three `--fork-point` test cases
fail without the change to rebase. Perhaps we want to duplicate all
"refs/heads/master" tests with a corresponding "master" test?
Thanks,
Denton
> test_rebase 'G F B A' --fork-point --keep-base refs/heads/master
> test_rebase 'G F C E D B A' refs/heads/master
> test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --onto D refs/heads/master
> --
> 2.17.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-06 1:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-05 22:53 [PATCH 0/3] rebase: fix bug in --fork-point Alex Torok
2019-12-05 22:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] rebase: add test for rebase --fork-point with short upstream Alex Torok
2019-12-05 23:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-12-05 23:25 ` Alex Torok
2019-12-05 22:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase: refactor dwim_ref_or_die from merge-base.c Alex Torok
2019-12-05 22:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: fix rebase to use full ref to find fork-point Alex Torok
2019-12-05 23:57 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] rebase: fix bug in --fork-point Alex Torok
2019-12-05 23:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] rebase: refactor dwim_ref_or_die from merge-base.c Alex Torok
2019-12-06 1:23 ` Denton Liu
2019-12-06 13:13 ` Alex Torok
2019-12-05 23:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: find --fork-point with full ref Alex Torok
2019-12-06 1:48 ` Denton Liu [this message]
2019-12-06 10:52 ` Phillip Wood
2019-12-06 13:46 ` Alex Torok
2019-12-06 19:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: find --fork-point with full refgg Denton Liu
2019-12-06 19:35 ` Phillip Wood
2019-12-09 14:53 ` [PATCH v3 0/1] rebase: fix --fork-point with short ref upstream Alex Torok
2019-12-09 14:53 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] rebase: fix --fork-point with short refname Alex Torok
2019-12-09 18:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-12-11 1:21 ` Alex Torok
2019-12-11 12:21 ` Denton Liu
2019-12-11 16:02 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-02-11 18:15 ` [PATCH v4 1/1] rebase: --fork-point regression fix Junio C Hamano
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=20191206014828.GB16183@generichostname \
--to=liu.denton@gmail.com \
--cc=alext9@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/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).