Re: [PATCH 0/6] fixup ra/rebase-i-more-options

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/04/2020 16:17, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Hi Phillip,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:11 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The tests for ra/rebase-i-more-options were not as comprehensive as
>> they could have been and some of the tests that we did have didn't do
>> a good job of testing what they purported to. This series cleans up
>> the tests and fixes a couple of bugs (thanks to Jonathan Nieder for
>> reporting one of them). The bug fix reworks the code to try and make
>> it clearer.
>>
>> I've opted to add some cleanup commits on top of Rohit's work rather
>> than reworking his patches. These are based on top of 4d924528d8
>> ("Revert "Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'"", 2020-01-12) there
>> are some conflicts when merging into pu. I had a quick look at the
>> conflicts and they appeared to be relatively straight forward to
>> resolve. If that impression is wrong let me know and I can rebase onto
>> master or try doing the merge myself and pushing it to github.
>>
>> Phillip Wood (6):
>>   Revert "Revert "Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'""
>>   t3433: remove loops from tests
>>   t3433: only compare commit dates
>>   rebase -i: fix --committer-date-is-author-date
>>   Revert "sequencer: allow callers of read_author_script() to ignore
>>     fields"
>>   t3433: improve coverage
>>
>>  Documentation/git-rebase.txt            |  27 +++-
>>  builtin/rebase.c                        |  49 ++++--
>>  sequencer.c                             | 109 ++++++++++++-
>>  sequencer.h                             |   2 +
>>  t/t3422-rebase-incompatible-options.sh  |   2 -
>>  t/t3433-rebase-options-compatibility.sh | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  7 files changed, 368 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100755 t/t3433-rebase-options-compatibility.sh
>>
>> --
>> 2.26.0
> 
> Thanks for working on this!  I took a look over the series and noted a
> few minor issues and questions, but it mostly looked good to me.

Thanks for looking at them and for your suggestions. I think I've got
reasonable test coverage now - lets see if Stolee's coverage script agrees

Best Wishes

Phillip


> Elijah
> 




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux