From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD0CC433DB for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A7D229C4 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726432AbhAJUZG (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:25:06 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62832 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726263AbhAJUZF (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:25:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696D79744B; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:24:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=9KWFcPLynkPN KaO5weo7SQ4QQlM=; b=hTVhwRitqS3cYV5/b56niV7iojvM40sk/aXERwIU0Egm WmZF+Nc65ltFSua34GM+exsxuhaT0WTXibtTh4fgDkPg4SQ11AolM9lulXwi+ciJ h9FLNGxVYw/BZxqTLt/VZkYfgn0mUmQe/BjEZwpSFf1SDIKmHfSkvTG05CZ9QMU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=OQvv4g KeT+ZLtnAG4iEdQuE0IG2sGUGn8Rq2w0B8Iydd9tXA0onywHGsGPWGxJIwMIr3Zr BQrUoTYWGpKa+Z19zQ/m+8z39R0wNgr6SzGHThiiLH50SqmPsTnmusDRVw0X2Dpa Z5ZgDtEObPL2nTuBif66Z3WfZFG9TBo++zsyI= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E889744A; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:24:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA60C97449; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:24:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: Denton Liu , Git Mailing List , Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] refs: allow @{n} to work with n-sized reflog References: <20210110144423.GU8396@szeder.dev> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:24:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20210110144423.GU8396@szeder.dev> ("SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1?= =?utf-8?Q?bor=22's?= message of "Sun, 10 Jan 2021 15:44:23 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D3886978-5381-11EB-9588-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: > Junio, > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:36:57AM -0800, Denton Liu wrote: >> When there is only one reflog entry (perhaps caused by expiring the >> reflog and then making a single commit) @{1} errors out even though >> there is technically enough information to do the lookup. Look at the >> old side of the reflog instead of the new side so that this does not >> fail. This is explained in more detail in the commit of the last patch= . > >> Denton Liu (2): >> refs: factor out set_read_ref_cutoffs() >> refs: allow @{n} to work with n-sized reflog > > Topic 'dl/reflog-with-single-entry', i.e. these two patches queued > directly on top of v2.29.2, break the test case "61 - valid ref of the > form "n", n < N" in 't3903-stash.sh'. Queueing them on top of > something already containing commit 4f44c5659b (stash: simplify reflog > emptiness check, 2020-10-24) fixes this issue. Thanks for carefully watching ;-) There is no reason why this fix needs to be backported down to 2.29 track, I would think.