That was the intention. Your idea for ordering makes more sense. I'll reorder the commits and submit new patches. On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alex Torok <alext9@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This proves the bug of "rebase --fork-point upstream branch" not using > > the fork point of upstream and branch if upstream is not the full > > refname of the upstream branch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Torok <alext9@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > Is this new test expected to fail after applying only 1/3 and then > starts working after applying all 3 patches? > > If so, it probably makes a lot mroe sense to reorder the series to > have 2/3 as a single preparatory patch, with 1/3 + 3/3 combined into > a single patch "rebase: find --fork-point with full ref" to fix the > code and protect the fix with the test at the same time. > > > diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh > > index 78851b9a2a..6ecdae918e 100755 > > --- a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh > > +++ b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --no-fork-point --onto D > > test_rebase 'G F C B A' --no-fork-point --keep-base > > test_rebase 'G F E D B A' --fork-point refs/heads/master > > test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D refs/heads/master > > +test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D master > > test_rebase 'G F B A' --fork-point --keep-base refs/heads/master > > test_rebase 'G F C E D B A' refs/heads/master > > test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --onto D refs/heads/master
