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=-3.8 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 621961F466 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728852AbgANV0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:26:23 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:33981 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726491AbgANV0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:26:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id a15so14135904otf.1 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:26:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AbbTI85lR2+y5eD+uvK6P7LYZBo3hbzBalAv8+uJRWk=; b=F3yd+8CdDAAWxYbbkEw3PGcsmea0gm1xEg7kz2PWtda0+QR9FchLadbuVfAnoWXjDX NuHadfMa/LKEV43rppTKda61NzECSpxBdSYmxP/NZOws7DPZR6AAIsVAGS+GNWSIiNeg /PDLDJ/0Q8PSPuJZVkQty+aFXP1BfGuSWbbs6J7TXyKU3MFRbL5fGiLCVaL4kySD7Mwt kBgNSbfJavuaJmwxmb4n2z2NJ8yH8ymbHdp3ETHpkcK609d38mna3eR5UAS+/iBlkCL0 1zu89gnbNA/QlTNYI3Og8cj30CX0Oouk5TtaTL84AyO4nxgOHlUSmUM6/tURS3Krdb+v NqRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AbbTI85lR2+y5eD+uvK6P7LYZBo3hbzBalAv8+uJRWk=; b=GolAS16tBDONNu+WCfYMBCwjgjKBvtG4vmvdRVLignkL14jwS2UqbzcAucbRdkoJ2K Jrx0Wnc9uVKH0WaqiRNagA1sPnG1v/9DWxeJajDPDL+DMk3XkE3O2BHSXyvG5r4E607Q 9CjgcOuDjk72JLwDU9r9zEMD47ISEc2akWroNAYJO5m1Vj9g7KXnA9X/u1XSDYpQY5Zg mqmGBOt0r/eEd3F2bz7hN/K3NWnNnkxAMpv1uuueAh88FPxa6J1BoMFAgFO2zd3Kv7sf Qyh0cBE4GUr4h8IneLTrrePYFk+/WN1Vdauy5n03yk9OhngsybkoP+qG4naLeF1U/zna IqQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXmNIJ2U5DGEdimrp0+mbMku6NChUoBRrxMzjTSQBTlVfOSLCFT /sEvVpluvVvON+EnRvZw4RLiF3ikZwqdnNMUMxs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAEDDkPiZG/8nFSULJPXV5T7POQ0/OVRYU7pvJxtzK8UankqsrgwUNkwWp4024UfBdK1y2OU1gytn8C9WVZmI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:634e:: with SMTP id y14mr319822otk.162.1579037182003; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:26:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200114205651.GA74460@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20200114205651.GA74460@google.com> From: Elijah Newren Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:26:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: en/rebase-backend (was Re: "rebase -ri" (was Re: Problems with ra/rebase-i-more-options - should we revert it?)) To: Emily Shaffer Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List , Phillip Wood Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Emily, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Emily Shaffer wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:52:57AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > > Hi Junio, > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:07 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > > > > > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > > > > > >> I will push out what I wish to be able to tag as the final [*1*] > > > >> shortly but without actually tagging, so that it can get a bit wider > > > >> exposure than just the usual "Gitster tested locally and then did > > > >> let Travis try them" testing. > > > > > > > > I haven't heard from any failure report so (taking no news as good > > > > news) I'll cut the final today based on what is already on the > > > > public repositories everywhere. > > > > > > By the way, as one of the methods to double check that my result of > > > reverting the merge made sense, I ran "git rebase -ri v2.24.0 pu" > > > and excised the merge and the problematic topic out of the todo > > > list. With the rerere database populated beforehand, it was more or > > > less a painless exercise (except for one topic, en/rebase-backend, > > > which is one of the topics that was queued forking 'master' after > > > the topic got merged *and* actually depended on what the topic did) > > > and after about 1700+ steps (which did not take more than 20 > > > minutes, including the time spent for the manual rebasing of > > > en/rebase-backend topic) I got the same tree for 'pu' I pushed out > > > last night. > > > > I wonder if I should have been the one fixing up the en/rebase-backend topic... > > > > Also, with the new release and the review comments Phillip posted on > > the en/rebase-backend series, would you rather see me address those as > > additional patches on top of en/rebase-backend, or should we kick that > > topic out of next and have me send a full re-roll? I'm not sure > > what'd be better and I don't mind going either direction... > > > For what it's worth, I had started to look into one of the bugs Jonathan > Nieder reported[1] as a patch on top of en/rebase-backend topic. I'll > keep an eye on this thread; if you're interested in rerolling the whole > topic then it might be less time for you to identify the right place to > call "post-commit" than it would be for me, plus less conflict > resolution time. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200110231436.GA24315@google.com/ > (bullet point 1) Ooh, that'd be great if you could fix the post-commit piece, especially since you're more familiar with the hooks in general and probably have access to the actual usecases where people are using post-commit hooks. I am planning on rerolling the topic, but I'd be happy to insert a patch authored by you into the series. Or maybe it'd be even better to just merge them as totally independent series -- I strongly doubt there would be any conflicts. I didn't touch the am codepaths in en/rebase-backend (any am codepaths I touched were submitted separately and already made it into v2.25.0), and since the resolution of the post-commit hook sounded like it should be modifying 'am' to behave like the merge/interactive backends (as per Junio's comments[2]), the fix should be orthogonal to the rest of en/rebase-backend. [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqa76sl67u.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/