From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS54825 147.75.192.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from ny.mirrors.kernel.org (ny.mirrors.kernel.org [147.75.199.223]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9767E1F44D for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ny.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C191C216AF for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4AB14F68; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:32:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="fpGnRl1g" Received: from mail-qv1-f42.google.com (mail-qv1-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC926DF4D for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708918356; cv=none; b=SCwuU6nWmyHodcYJsKKnwT1Ldb6LnZ8AgvH+sU7ztxcvhXqwqI7UlmMhdHhfAePcmlh35/4Q+KQVIetaH6Hi/jUyft3kMc6cQvg47XZuFihhPib05kZfkYdFjG00NafwlM7RUxt58b2oznJ15RoiOsc4MAJMsJEmz+5QfJAWcdw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708918356; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qcydO+lTir4QZMcfyspKCilhWxcQBTvYksGirAWU4cY=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:Date: Content-Type; b=cLzb6KbLBljEUy8lhmrtSV+u5fnABquazLSlO6vIGYcsxa9Aon+cGHW/ZLVFwaSOqrpGwSUi2R55Y+FD6OZWVv4dPb2Qqfpwg6uUMZBO1XO0siPn9TpSH2V5JxtDUMhnjaWeIcEFzPaew8SXivmD8j9GgTQxT/34o/lCYXVu48k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=fpGnRl1g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6900e209df4so1555626d6.0 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:32:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708918353; x=1709523153; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id:subject:cc:in-reply-to:to :from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6EIMIuETNfpGLYNkRBUZL73anykMixtsX0GuhR3SWww=; b=fpGnRl1gc9x7cwk03KD6vv1+bJgyx+nU9XGkJtRS5uaKcGytsPb831fYb13Y3RLyUK cTqbY6q3vhsBLxXDYU9Nehza8t+QYejN8gJO9i1vzadhSPeaz3rWdckKw/OxWpvvRYr4 kC2Xu/9sYhBiY3Ze7AE9pyZo0G8xmmdiimAFUvU7jCIaUPARhhk3Cqd3XkQjJJamQ9iC 4ER3QvaRYgu1cZzzVdvs5mCCIsXGykekq4Ci+zdi03BxqIRIUoU/gQfH3INyBez5NCaD X0imZFruK2FVaUNyn4TLfh8sVz3UtjCkTltN4NiC/agE5yNU2gvc316otcgol0/tib4X P2Qg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708918353; x=1709523153; h=content-transfer-encoding:date:message-id:subject:cc:in-reply-to:to :from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=6EIMIuETNfpGLYNkRBUZL73anykMixtsX0GuhR3SWww=; b=jyuwVyx71GarcHXVW2S+tP/g2MOBYVSgy7aESP4sbApsNf5GAIT6i+4EuLHktJgvLz AfZZO/bNTO20t7CimeYAdNrhZrI0HFF1430R42IWW65mEXZ1iqQUvLEVMP7fh6Kashft H7x5WrzXkwrQ5GwZ3EEK36B26z6JXgUNwZtbeLNpos483XGocrpSzpoyZFNr7hxF7Wal L4XoZ1vEPXNMD0WvIhxS/gTKuoilzPf/7oQy4A633ou6jPso6BFHzvy28T9Q0a/14hLC QsCl6jmD6CdtSJQmb1E3vKLQnYpzNWc7kLwwvYIJAroQr5y/kYAGIvZ30vb5P0qaN34l /Mnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwaSDgMr2rlWtnCZk642yEl2e8BMGhBRWhYnN8tfk7GBiQ9dzpA 5gkOtL/AH6kzHuTYlyY54mlTs4VcJVNpSFcQScb1SSKPf31mW8RMEz82oqXl X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHDwyA2Enbjf12HYwbPrDbjvLTYitFomwekMwTzDZ7cZEJUgikiA9S4LsQ7fzi058tbtT7hVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:418d:b0:68f:8927:ac6c with SMTP id ld13-20020a056214418d00b0068f8927ac6cmr8967818qvb.20.1708918353549; Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:32:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from zivdesk (047-034-027-162.res.spectrum.com. [47.34.27.162]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id em19-20020ad44f93000000b0068f0ff36defsm2415513qvb.47.2024.02.25.19.32.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:32:32 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Brian Lyles" To: , In-Reply-To: <83070e02-8e6b-43d2-819d-2272fe895c75@gmail.com> Cc: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] cherry-pick: add `--empty` for more robust redundant commit handling Message-ID: <17b74c2ffa1884ed.70b1dd9aae081c6e.203dcd72f6563036@zivdesk> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:32:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Phillip and Junio On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:57=E2=80=AFAM wrote: > On 23/02/2024 06:58, Brian Lyles wrote: >> I think I'm on board with leaving `--keep-redundant-commits` alone. I'm >> on the fence about having `--empty=3Dkeep` imply `--allow-empty` after >> seeing Junio's concerns. I laid out the options that I see in a reply to >> patch 6/8[1] and would appreciate input there. I'll adjust the details >> of this commit in v3 based on what we decide there. >=20 > I'll take a look at that in the next couple of days > >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/17b666ca6c4b7561.70b1dd9aae081c6e.203dcd= 72f6563036@zivdesk/ I'm not quite sure what happened here, but it seems that: - The above link is to the wrong email, and - The email I meant to link to isn't showing up in the archive for some reason, despite clearly showing as sent in my mailbox Apologies for the confusion -- I'm not sure what happened. In an attempt to keep this conversation on track, I've copied my original attempted reply to Phillip's[2] and Junio's[3] replies below. [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/3f276e10-7b03-4480-a157-47a7648e7f19@gmail.= com/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqwmqwcpf7.fsf@gitster.g/ On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:08=E2=80=AFAM Brian Lyles = wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Phillip Wood wrote: > > > I agree that if we were starting from scratch there would be no reason > > to tie --apply-empty and --keep-redundant-commits together but I'm not > > sure it is worth the disruption of changing it now. We're about to add > > empty=3Dkeep which won't imply --allow-empty for anyone who wants that > > behavior and I still tend to think the practical effect of implying > > --allow-empty with --keep-redundant-commits is largely beneficial as I'm > > skeptical that users want to keep commits that become empty but not the > > ones that started empty. > > I think that's fair. I am okay dropping this potentially disruptive > change. > > It sounds like you are on board with `--empty=3Dkeep` not having the same > implication? > > That said... > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:41=E2=80=AFPM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I do not quite see a good reason to do the opposite, dropping > > commits that started out as empty but keeping the ones that have > > become empty. Such a behaviour has additional downside that after > > such a cherry-pick, when you cherry-pick the resulting history onto > > yet another base, your precious "were not empty but have become so > > during the initial cherry-pick" commits will appear as commits that > > were empty from the start. So I do not see much reason to allow the > > decoupling, even with the new "empty=3Dkeep" thing that does not imply > > "allow-empty". > > Junio -- can you clarify this part? > > > So I do not see much reason to allow the decoupling, even with the new > > "empty=3Dkeep" thing that does not imply "allow-empty" > > I'm not 100% sure if you are saying that you want `--empty=3Dkeep` to > *also* imply `--allow-empty`, or that you simply want > `--keep-redundant-commits` to continue implying `--allow-empty` > *despite* the new `--empty=3Dkeep` no implying the same. > > On the one hand, I agree with Phillip's sentiment of "if we were > starting from scratch there would be no reason to tie --apply-empty and > --keep-redundant-commits together" (though your points perhaps provide > such a reason). On the other, if both `--keep-redundant-commits` and > `--empty=3Dkeep` behave the same way, it makes sense to soft-deprecate > `--keep-redundant-commits` as I have currently done later in this > series. If they do not behave the same way, that deprecation makes less > sense and we have two very similar (but not quite identical) options. > > Just to make sure we're on the same page, the options I see are: > > - (A): Neither `--keep-redundant-commits` nor `--empty=3Dkeep` imply > `--allow-empty`, `--keep-redundant-commits` is soft-deprecated > - (B): Both `--keep-redundant-commits` and `--empty=3Dkeep` imply > `--allow-empty`, `--keep-redundant-commits` is soft-deprecated > - (C): Both `--keep-redundant-commits` and `--empty=3Dkeep` imply > `--allow-empty`, `--keep-redundant-commits` is *not* soft-deprecated > as it is more descriptive as noted by Junio here[1] > - (D): `--keep-redundant-commits` continues to imply `--allow-empty` but > `--empty=3Dkeep` does not. `--keep-redundant-commits` is *not* > soft-deprecated as it behaves differently. > > (A) represents this v2 of the patch. > > I'm coming around to (B) based on Junio's workflow concerns, but to be > honest I am fine with any of these options. Junio, I *think* you're > saying you'd prefer (B) or (C)? Phillip, it sounds like you are okay > with (D) based on your response -- how do you feel about (B)? > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8r4gnd3c.fsf@gitster.g/ Thank you both for your review and insight! --=20 Thank you, Brian Lyles