Am 30.05.2013 07:30, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:
> 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':
>
> 1. Let's say origin/master points to 'b' when you start the 'd G i'
> branch. You then send the 'G' patch to Junio who applies it as 'g'
> (cherry-picking direction is reversed compared to figure, but same
> effect). You then "git pull --rebase" when master on origin points to
> 'h'. Because of the cleverness in 'git pull --rebase', it issues 'git
> rebase --onto h b i'.
The reason for this git pull cleverness is to be prepared for rewritten
history:
b'--c'--g'--h'
/
a---b
\
d---G---i
to avoid that b is rebased.
> In this case it's clearly useful to have the
> patch dropped.
>
> 2. In the test a little before the above one, we instead do 'git
> rebase --onto f h i' and make sure that the 'G' is _not_ lost. In that
> case it doesn't matter what's in $branch..$upstream. Do we agree that
> $branch..$upstream should never matter (instead, $upstream is only
> used to find merge base with $branch)?
No, we do not agree. $branch..$upstream should be the set of patches
that should be omitted. $branch..$onto should not matter. $onto is only
used to specify the destination of the rebased commits.
> Do we also agree that 'git
> rebase a b' should be identical to 'git rebase --onto a a b'?
Absolutely!
> Because
> 'git rebase h i' should clearly drop 'G', then so should 'git rebase
> --onto h h i'.
Yes!
> Then, if we agreed that $branch..$upstream doesn't
> matter, 'git rebase --onto h f i' should behave the same, no?
Correct in the mathematically logical sense. ;) But we do not agree that
$branch..$upstream doesn't matter.
> The set of commits to rebase that I was thinking of using was
> "$upstream..$branch, unless equivalent with patch in $branch..$onto".
> But I'm not very confident about my conclusions above :-)
At least the man page says that ..$upstream counts and $onto tells just
the new base.
The way how git pull calls rebase should be revisited, I think.
-- Hannes
--
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