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?
