On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk
<martinvonz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk
>> <martinvonz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:
>>>>> +# f
>>>>> +# /
>>>>> +# a---b---c---g---h
>>>>> +# \
>>>>> +# d---G---i
>>>> ...
>>>>> +test_run_rebase () {
>>>>> + result=$1
>>>>> + shift
>>>>> + test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto drops patches in onto" "
>>>>> + reset_rebase &&
>>>>> + git rebase $* --onto h f i &&
>>>>> + test_cmp_rev h HEAD~2 &&
>>>>> + test_linear_range 'd i' h..
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this expectation wrong? The upstream of the rebased branch is f, and
>>>> it does not contain G. Hence, G should be replayed. Since h is the
>>>> reversal of g, the state at h is the same as at c, and applying G should
>>>> succeed (it is the same change as g). Therefore, I think the correct
>>>> expectation is:
>>>>
>>>> test_linear_range 'd G i' h..
>>>
>>> Good question! It is really not obvious what the right answer is. Some
>>> arguments in favor of dropping 'G':
>>
>> I think the answer is obvious; G should not be dropped. Maybe it made
>> sense to drop g in upstream, but d fixes an issue, and it makes sense
>> to apply G on upstream.
>
> Well, maybe I was wrong in thinking that dropping 'G' in 'git rebase
> --onto f h i' is bad. It seems to complicate things a lot, so maybe we
> should just decide that it's fine to do that (to drop 'G' in that
> case). Since that's mostly how it has worked forever and no one seems
> to have reported a problem with it, I'm probably just being paranoid.
> Thoughts?
Huh? I said the opposite; G should *not* be dropped.
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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