On 13/10/2022 20:21, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
+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
Where's the wrapping?
with shorter
variable names, anyway, I see it's code copied from above, so nevermind
in advance... :)
As it is copied it is easier to review leaving it as is I think.
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:
Thanks, well spotted, I'm sure I've fixed this at least once already, I
must have reintroduced it when fixing a rebase conflict. I'll fix it again.
Best Wishes
Phillip
@@ -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?