On Thu, Oct 13 2022, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Separate out calculating the merge base between 'onto' and 'HEAD' from
> the check for whether we can fast-forward or not. This means we can skip
> the fast-forward checks when the rebase is forced and avoid calculating
> the merge-base between 'HEAD' and 'onto' when --keep-base is given.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/rebase.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> index cbafcc41e75..40619a0fb2d 100644
> --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> @@ -871,13 +871,9 @@ static int can_fast_forward(struct commit *onto, struct commit *upstream,
> struct commit_list *merge_bases = NULL;
> int res = 0;
>
> - merge_bases = get_merge_bases(onto, head);
> - if (!merge_bases || merge_bases->next) {
> - oidcpy(branch_base, null_oid());
> - goto done;
> - }
> + if (is_null_oid(branch_base))
> + goto done; /* fill_branch_base() found multiple merge bases */
>
> - oidcpy(branch_base, &merge_bases->item->object.oid);
> if (!oideq(branch_base, &onto->object.oid))
> goto done;
>
> @@ -887,7 +883,6 @@ static int can_fast_forward(struct commit *onto, struct commit *upstream,
> if (!upstream)
> goto done;
>
> - free_commit_list(merge_bases);
> merge_bases = get_merge_bases(upstream, head);
> if (!merge_bases || merge_bases->next)
> goto done;
> @@ -902,6 +897,20 @@ done:
> return res && is_linear_history(onto, head);
> }
>
> +static void fill_branch_base(struct rebase_options *options,
> + struct object_id *branch_base)
> +{
> + struct commit_list *merge_bases = NULL;
> +
> + merge_bases = get_merge_bases(options->onto, options->orig_head);
> + if (!merge_bases || merge_bases->next)
> + oidcpy(branch_base, null_oid());
> + else
> + oidcpy(branch_base, &merge_bases->item->object.oid);
> +
> + free_commit_list(merge_bases);
> +}
I wondered if this could be a bit shorter/less wrap-y with shorter
variable names, anyway, I see it's code copied from above, so nevermind
in advance... :)
static void fill_branch_base(struct rebase_options *o, struct object_id *dst)
{
struct commit_list *mb = get_merge_bases(o->onto, o->orig_head);
const struct object_id *src = (!mb || mb->next) ? null_oid() :
&mb->item->object.oid;
oidcpy(dst, src);
free_commit_list(mb);
}
> @@ -1669,8 +1678,8 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> if (!options.onto)
> die(_("Does not point to a valid commit '%s'"),
> options.onto_name);
> + fill_branch_base(&options, &branch_base);
> }
> -
> if (options.fork_point > 0)
> options.restrict_revision =
> get_fork_point(options.upstream_name, options.orig_head);
I wouldn't mind the stray whitespace change, but here it seems
unintentional, in 7/8 your change on top is:
@@ -1680,6 +1691,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
options.onto_name);
fill_branch_base(&options, &branch_base);
}
+ if (keep_base && options.reapply_cherry_picks)
+ options.upstream = options.onto;
+
if (options.fork_point > 0)
options.restrict_revision =
get_fork_point(options.upstream_name, options.orig_head);
Presumably we want to have \n\n spacing for both of those, and to not
remove the spacing here in 6/8, only to add it back?
