From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BE820248 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 06:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726698AbfCNGkX (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:40:23 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:24220 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726530AbfCNGkW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:40:22 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44KfGX50YQz5tlC; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:40:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A451D17; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:40:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rebase -i: demonstrate obscure loose object cache bug To: Jeff King Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin References: <87k1h2bvpb.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20190313163516.GA26045@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <0f7870b7-f92a-ad63-7854-300c202cb4a8@kdbg.org> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:40:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190313163516.GA26045@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 13.03.19 um 17:35 schrieb Jeff King: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> As a further improvement, is there a good reason for why we wouldn't >> pass something down to the oid machinery to say "we're only interested >> in commits". I have a WIP series somewhere to generalize that more, but >> e.g. here locally: > > We have get_oid_commit() and get_oid_committish() already. Should rebase > just be using those? (I think we probably want "commit()", because we do > not expect a "pick" line to have a tag, for example. 'pick' needs all the power of revision expressions. Not all too infrequently I do insert a pick line with a rev expression argument. Assuming that the resolved object is a commit is too strict. -- Hannes