Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This patch series rewrite the interactive rebase from shell to C.
Thanks.
> It is based on ffc6fa0e39 ("Fourth batch for 2.19 cycle", 2018-07-24).
> The v4 was based on b7bd9486 ("Third batch for 2.19 cycle", 2018-07-18).
> I wanted to make sure my series works well with 'bb/pedantic',
> 'jk/empty-pick-fix', and 'as/sequencer-customizable-comment-char', as
> they modified sequencer.c.
It is a good practice to keey an eye on other topics in flight to
make sure you play well with others.
What you can do better in a case like this is to apply the patches
on the same base as v4 and then trial merge the result into the
newer base of your choice (e.g. ffc6fa0e39), and also apply the same
patches on top of the same newer base. If
(1) the application to the old base goes cleanly,
(2) the trial merge goes cleanly, and
(3) the result of the trial merge exactly matches the tree as applying
the patches on the newer base
then it is preferrable not to rebase but keep the old base as the
previous round to avoid needless churn. For a new development like
this (as opposed to "fix for long standing bugs"), keeping an old
and tested base does not matter too much, but it is a good
discipline to get into to hold your base steady.
The patches looked all good and applied cleanly. Will queue and
wait for a few days to see if anybody spots something glaringly
wrong (I expect none) and then merge it to 'next'.
Thanks.
