Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Especially I did not check if there are
>> still undesirable data loss behaviour in corner cases that people
>> were worried about in the discussion.
>
> Check the tests.  What am I missing?

I didn't do a thorough check, but my earlier comments are taken into
account, I didn't see anything wrong and the tests in 7/7 are good.

>>    Perhaps "rebase" can be taught to be more careful when checking
>>    if local changes may overlap with the changes being replayed.
>
> Frankly, I don't know if it's worth the effort.  It might be a nice
> theoretical exercise, but what tangible benefit do I get as the end
> user (now that I have rebase.autostash)?  In fact, I'll probably be
> slowing down the interactive rebase noticeably by executing a
> diff-tree at every step.  And for what?

One benefit would be to avoid triggering rebuild (and editor reload) by
keeping the timestamps intact. But I agree it's probably not worth the
effort (and definitely isn't in the scope of this series).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]