Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a WIP series I have that I figured I'd send out as-is for > comment since Junio said he'd be merging dl/rebase-i-keep-base down. > > So I wanted to test it, and as seen early in this series in 3/13 and > 4/13 we had significant blindspots in our tests, i.e. there were no > tests for whether --no-ff bypassed the amended logic as it should. > > As seen from those tests we may have some bugs here, either existing > or new, needs more poking at it. Thanks. I am actually OK to keep dl/rebase-i-keep-base out of 'next' to iron out the kinks. It's not like we are in a hurry to deliber an important fix to our users---the topic is adding a new feature and attempting to fix a minor irritation (i.e. lost opportunity to fast-forward). > Then in 9/13 and 10/13 I re-added the incomplete patches I had in > https://public-inbox.org/git/20190221214059.9195-1-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ > to see if my tests passed with Denton's --fork-point code, they > do. Yay! > > Left them there because I was wondering if I needed to port some/all > of the tests over, and maybe amend a commit message to reword some of > my findings in > https://public-inbox.org/git/871s3z6a4q.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Then I have 11/13 and 12/13 which seem pretty sensible to me as-is, > and finally I wanted --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges to also > benefit from this logic, so 13/13 is a WIP patch for that. The code > should be done (although maybe there's a better way to do it...), but > it needs a better commit message & tests.
