On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:55:48PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:16:46PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:27:01PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> > >> > The previous commit added a new format for $GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS which > >> > is able to robustly handle subsections with "=" in them. Let's start > >> > >> It looks like this commit and 6 got flipped from the original ordering > >> (it's the "previous commit" talked about here). And indeed, running the > >> tests on the individual commits in this series shows that we fail at > >> this step (because we are writing the new format, but the reader is too > >> strict to accept it). > >> > >> That doesn't matter to the end result, of course, but it hurts later > >> bisecting. Just flipping patches 5 and 6 makes it all work. > >> > >> -Peff > > > > Oops, yes. That always happens to me when I start using git-am(1). I see > > that the patch series has been applied to "next" already, so does it > > make any sense to resend with patches 5 and 6 flipped? > > I recall saying that I'd "rebase -i" before merging it to "next". > Did I forget to do so? > > Disecting 4ed03412 (Merge branch 'ps/config-env-pairs' into next, > 2021-01-15), we see: > > $ git log --oneline --reverse master..4ed03412^2 | cat -n > 1 b0812b6ac0 git: add `--super-prefix` to usage string > 2 ce81b1da23 config: add new way to pass config via `--config-env` > 3 13c44953fb quote: make sq_dequote_step() a public function > 4 b342ae61b3 config: extract function to parse config pairs > 5 f9dbb64fad config: parse more robust format in GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS > 6 1ff21c05ba config: store "git -c" variables using more robust format > 7 b9d147fb15 environment: make `getenv_safe()` a public function > 8 d8d77153ea config: allow specifying config entries via envvar pairs > > The 5/8 that needs to come after 6/8 has title "store ... using more > rebust format" and that is the 6th patch in the series merged to > 'next'. The 6/8 that needs to come before that one was called > "parse more robust format" and it now appears as the 5th patch. > > So it seems all is well? Indeed, I missed your message about the interactive rebase. Thanks! Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
