From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
To: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>,
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2019, #01; Thu, 3)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:46:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a462c85b-5ae9-8b3d-27ee-00ba081d8af1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BE+D-GFJaucgCCsBA8E7nQAxc0vNE92HaCpOTQrUp=mPA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Elijah
On 05/10/2019 01:40, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:49 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Junio
>>
>> On 03/10/2019 06:04, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
>>> '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
>>> '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
>>> the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> * pw/rebase-i-show-HEAD-to-reword (2019-08-19) 3 commits
>>> - sequencer: simplify root commit creation
>>> - rebase -i: check for updated todo after squash and reword
>>> - rebase -i: always update HEAD before rewording
>>> (this branch is used by ra/rebase-i-more-options.)
>>>
>>> "git rebase -i" showed a wrong HEAD while "reword" open the editor.
>>>
>>> Will merge to 'next'.
>>
>> That's great, thanks
>>
>>>
>>> * ra/rebase-i-more-options (2019-09-09) 6 commits
>>> - rebase: add --reset-author-date
>>> - rebase -i: support --ignore-date
>>> - sequencer: rename amend_author to author_to_rename
>>> - rebase -i: support --committer-date-is-author-date
>>> - sequencer: allow callers of read_author_script() to ignore fields
>>> - rebase -i: add --ignore-whitespace flag
>>> (this branch uses pw/rebase-i-show-HEAD-to-reword.)
>>>
>>> "git rebase -i" learned a few options that are known by "git
>>> rebase" proper.
>>>
>>> Is this ready for 'next'.
>>
>> Nearly, but not quite I think cf [1]. Also I'm still not convinced that
>> having different behaviors for --ignore-whitespace depending on the
>> backend is going to be helpful but maybe they are close enough not to
>> matter too much in practice [2].
>
> Sorry I should have chimed in sooner; I can speak to the second point.
> I would say that in practice it doesn't matter a lot; in most cases
> the two overlap. Both am's --ignore-whitespace and merge's
> -Xignore-space-change are buggy (in different ways) and should be
> fixed, but I'd consider them both to be buggy in edge cases. I
> recommended earlier this summer that Rohit submit the patches without
> first attempting to fix apply or xdiff, and kept in my TODO list
> that'd I'd go in and fix xdiff later if Rohit didn't have extra time
> for it. I did a little digging back then to find out the differences
> and suggested some text to use to explain them and to argue that they
> shouldn't block this feature:
>
> """
> am's --ignore-space-change (an alias for am's --ignore-whitespace; see
> git-apply's description of those two flags) not only share the same
> name with diff's --ignore-space-change and merge's
> -Xignore-space-change, but the similarity in naming appears to have
> been intentional with am's --ignore-space-change and merge's
> -Xignore-space-change being designed to have the same functionality
> (see e.g. the commit messages for f008cef4abb2 ("Merge branch
> 'jc/apply-ignore-whitespace'", 2014-06-03) and 4e5dd044c62f
> ("merge-recursive: options to ignore whitespace changes",
> 2010-08-26)). For the most part, these options do provide the same
> behavior. However, there are some edge cases where both apply's
> --ignore-space-change and merge's -Xignore-space-change fall short of
> optimal behavior, and in different ways. In particular,
> --ignore-space-change for apply will handle whitespace changes in the
> context region but not in the region the other side modified, and
> -Xignore-space-change will delete whitespace changes even when the
> other side had no changes (thus treating both sides as unmodified).
> Fixing these differences in edge cases is left for future work; this
> patch simply wires interactive rebase to also understand
> --ignore-whitespace by translating it to -Xignore-space-change.
> """
>
> I've got another email with even more detail if folks need it.
Thanks for clarifying that, it sounds like it shouldn't be a problem in
practice then (especially if you're planning some improvements)
Best Wishes
Phillip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-05 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-03 5:04 What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2019, #01; Thu, 3) Junio C Hamano
2019-10-03 18:28 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-10-03 22:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-03 20:28 ` Elijah Newren
2019-10-03 22:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-10-04 9:44 ` Phillip Wood
2019-10-05 0:40 ` Elijah Newren
2019-10-05 19:46 ` Phillip Wood [this message]
2019-10-05 23:36 ` 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=a462c85b-5ae9-8b3d-27ee-00ba081d8af1@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/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).