Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> - Rebased the patch series on top of current `master`, i.e. both
>> `pw/rebase-keep-empty-fixes` and `pw/rebase-signoff`, to resolve merge
>> conflicts myself.
>
> Good to see the last item, as this gave me a chance to make sure
> that the conflict resolution I've been carrying matches how you
> would have resolved as the original author. Applying these on the
> old base (with minor conflict resolution) to match the old iteration
> and merging the result to the new base1f1cddd5 ("The fourth batch
> for 2.18", 2018-04-25) resulted in the same tree as the tree that
> results from applying these on top of the new base.
>
> That was done only to validate the result of the past resolution
> (and also seeing the interdiff from the old iteration). There is no
> reason to keep this series back-portable to older tip of 'master',
> so I'll queue the result of applying the patches to the new base.
By the way, the rebasing made the topic textually merge cleanly to
the tip of 'pu' which made it slightly more cumbersome to deal with
a semantic conflict the topic has with another topic that modifies
the function signature of get_main_ref_store(). This topic adds a
new callsite in sequencer.c to this function.
The old base that forced the integrator to resolve conflicts in
sequencer.c with some other topic, thanks to that exact textual
conflicts, gave rerere a chance to record the adjustment for this
semantic conflict.
Now because the series applied to new base does not have textual
conflicts in sequencer.c when merged to 'pu', the adjustment for the
semantic conflict needs to be carried by a different mechanism.
Side note. Do not take the above as a complaint. Dealing with
interactions among various topics in flight while keeping them
as straight and clean topic is what I do. It is a normal part
of running an active project.
It may be an interesting exercise to attempt to rebase tonight's
'pu' onto something younger in 'pu', say 'pu~4', without changing
anything in "pu^2" (which is the tip of this topic) and see how well
the merge recreation feature of this topic handles the evil merge.
The gist of the evil merge looks like this:
diff --cc sequencer.c
index a428fc7db7,e2f8394284..729cf05768
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@@ -2483,6 -2527,349 +2556,349 @@@ static int do_exec(const char *command_
...
+
+ static int do_label(const char *name, int len)
+ {
- struct ref_store *refs = get_main_ref_store();
++ struct ref_store *refs = get_main_ref_store(the_repository);
+ struct ref_transaction *transaction;
+ struct strbuf ref_name = STRBUF_INIT, err = STRBUF_INIT;
+ struct strbuf msg = STRBUF_INIT;
+...
