On Mon, Apr 01 2019, Denton Liu wrote: > Thanks again for your feedback, Ævar! I think we're both on the same page now. > Hopefully I've addressed all of your high-level concerns with this patchset and > we can move into a discussion on implementation detail. Late in replying to this, have been off-list. This also applies for your v4. The current version you have still doesn't explain the "Why would we redundantly rebase every time in this case..." question I had in https://public-inbox.org/git/87tvfma8yt.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I *think* it's closer to "it was easier to implement this in terms of --onto, which happens to behave that way now" than "it must work this way for --keep-base", which is fair enough. Although I see when I forward-port my POC patch from that E-Mail that one test fails now, which is good, that wasn't the case before, but it looks like that might be testing something else than just the lazy behavior. It would be good to know in terms of commit message or (better) explicit tests so that if we teach these various rebase modes the same lazyness --fork-point uses in the future it's clear if that's OK or not.
