On 2020-03-29 21:06:21-0700, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When rebasing against an upstream that has had many commits since the > original branch was created: > > O -- O -- ... -- O -- O (upstream) > \ > -- O (my-dev-branch) > > it must read the contents of every novel upstream commit, in addition to > the tip of the upstream and the merge base, because "git rebase" > attempts to exclude commits that are duplicates of upstream ones. This > can be a significant performance hit, especially in a partial clone, > wherein a read of an object may end up being a fetch. > > Add a flag to "git rebase" to allow suppression of this feature. This > flag only works when using the "merge" backend. > > This flag changes the behavior of sequencer_make_script(), called from > do_interactive_rebase() <- run_rebase_interactive() <- > run_specific_rebase() <- cmd_rebase(). With this flag, limit_list() > (indirectly called from sequencer_make_script() through > prepare_revision_walk()) will no longer call cherry_pick_list(), and > thus PATCHSAME is no longer set. Refraining from setting PATCHSAME both > means that the intermediate commits in upstream are no longer read (as > shown by the test) and means that no PATCHSAME-caused skipping of > commits is done by sequencer_make_script(), either directly or through > make_script_with_merges(). > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > This commit contains Junio's sign-off because I based it on > jt/rebase-allow-duplicate. > > This does not include the fix by Đoàn Trần Công Danh. If we want all > commits to pass all tests (whether run by Busybox or not) it seems like > we should squash that patch instead of having it as a separate commit. > If we do squash, maybe include a "Helped-by" with Đoàn Trần Công Danh's > name. Hi Jonathan, Feel free to squash it in. -- Danh
