public inbox for git@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: John Keeping <john@keeping•me.uk>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org, Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:06:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqmwcatgza.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01d69c566e04256fb0321ab9685d1f05a80cb41d.1405451643.git.john@keeping.me.uk> (John Keeping's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:14:03 +0100")

John Keeping <john@keeping•me.uk> writes:

> When the `--fork-point` argument was added to `git rebase`, we changed
> the value of $upstream to be the fork point instead of the point from
> which we want to rebase.  When $orig_head..$upstream is empty this does
> not change the behaviour, but when there are new changes in the upstream
> we are no longer checking if any of them are patch-identical with
> changes in $upstream..$orig_head.
>
> Fix this by introducing a new variable to hold the fork point and using
> this to restrict the range as an extra (negative) revision argument so
> that the set of desired revisions becomes (in fork-point mode):
>
> 	git rev-list --cherry-pick --right-only \
> 		$upstream...$orig_head ^$fork_point
>
> This allows us to correctly handle the scenario where we have the
> following topology:
>
> 	    C --- D --- E  <- dev
> 	   /
> 	  B  <- master@{1}
> 	 /
> 	o --- B' --- C* --- D*  <- master
>
> where:
> - B' is a fixed-up version of B that is not patch-identical with B;
> - C* and D* are patch-identical to C and D respectively and conflict
>   textually if applied in the wrong order;
> - E depends textually on D.
>
> The correct result of `git rebase master dev` is that B is identified as
> the fork-point of dev and master, so that C, D, E are the commits that
> need to be replayed onto master; but C and D are patch-identical with C*
> and D* and so can be dropped, so that the end result is:
>
> 	o --- B' --- C* --- D* --- E  <- dev
>
> If the fork-point is not identified, then picking B onto a branch
> containing B' results in a conflict and if the patch-identical commits
> are not correctly identified then picking C onto a branch containing D
> (or equivalently D*) results in a conflict.
>
> This change allows us to handle both of these cases, where previously we
> either identified the fork-point (with `--fork-point`) but not the
> patch-identical commits *or* (with `--no-fork-point`) identified the
> patch-identical commits but not the fact that master had been rewritten.
>
> Reported-by: Ted Felix <ted@tedfelix•com>
> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping•me.uk>
> ---
>  git-rebase--am.sh          | 6 ++++--
>  git-rebase--interactive.sh | 2 +-
>  git-rebase.sh              | 7 ++++---
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Can we have some tests, too?

The changes look correct from a cursory reading.

Thanks.

next prev parent reply	other threads:[~2014-07-15 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-03 15:14 [BUG] rebase no longer omits local commits Ted Felix
2014-07-03 19:09 ` John Keeping
2014-07-03 22:25   ` John Keeping
2014-07-07 17:56     ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-07 21:14       ` John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:14         ` [PATCH 1/2] rebase--am: use --cherry-pick instead of --ignore-if-in-upstream John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:14           ` [PATCH 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point John Keeping
2014-07-15 19:48             ` Ted Felix
2014-07-15 22:06             ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-07-16 19:23               ` [PATCH v2 1/2] rebase--am: use --cherry-pick instead of --ignore-if-in-upstream John Keeping
2014-07-16 19:23                 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point John Keeping
2014-07-16 20:26                   ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-16 21:27                     ` John Keeping
2014-07-16 21:36                   ` Ted Felix
2014-07-17  9:36                     ` John Keeping

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqmwcatgza.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
    --cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=john@keeping$(echo .)me.uk \
    --cc=ted@tedfelix$(echo .)com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox