Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not sure about that. There are really three levels of output from > rebase - quiet, normal and verbose. I think passing "-q" suppresses > virtually all the output - there is no indication of which commits > have been picked. As test appears to be comparing the output of the > command for the sparse and non-spare case as a proxy for "it behaves > the same for sparse and non-sparse checkouts/indexes" passing "-q" to > rebase weakens the test considerably. True. Also because the behaviour of "rebase" using different backends are sufficiently different, I no longer consider it a funny inconsistency that one backend has to to use "-q" while the other doesn't. > Stolee indicated [1] that he is > happy for us to drop the "-q" for the "--apply" case so I'd be > inclined to go back to your corrected version of V2. OK. Can we have a v4 that is identical to "corrected" v2, then, please? That's easier than having to dig v2 up and remember and apply the "correction" ;-). Thanks.
