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-Status: No, score=-2.6 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,PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E6D1F4B4 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726059AbhAUX0e (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:26:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55400 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726199AbhAUX0S (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:26:18 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44A62C06174A for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id x23so4461946lji.7 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:25:38 -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=P/bspqzR7e4WdXA8Fsr4imO+A8C6n2vE2uXagvKazNM=; b=SXvkKT/sIYUGvHudP+HgC75bvOtnxgEyhobiUOoNTZxNGR35aPP005MmfJFS4f4iui n0WTiek03bJeaHG4zvqpYw8etRI6q+EUyRFOnyajHjXB6XaIUZU3/cRdEiv79St1HGCT z97Y2NCdRdhKDCXZnUXNTk6/8Qbg3mkb38/Ietvp3BycWw52/3MhEq4+y/7umTJO8Y5D 0QraXubxpBGpU7J4Lg20n6v6LfKzsL8FUzXhRmGp43SD2Xr7d7Rx5ueHL9y6qIaPRzVs rld+QrINwn3thd3cp/gWZlH7RGYbWxQ+3PfBWuWTLokmyXKzZYE+1jOMoSngcl00v9hV zVqA== 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=P/bspqzR7e4WdXA8Fsr4imO+A8C6n2vE2uXagvKazNM=; b=r3UP1JMJx1agPjMl8oUS7ASoPVqrwBnfUPDjEghyoMbITd/bAzDiUfVmvgVc7adAT9 eEQrQM53POskQNQQRRiXS6fg9yE4ronzxlPxxoqaCK8Pp240KRbSGaGjxEGPOMTPtOoG a0dJFx+XsaVUzv/HlUdQBFKlsBT2r/1NlZJeremamRaeXa1cbPKnp46ZdSOXN2AKAefz zSt+r3UCPhNwZmu1Gv9KyAxWlRl9vwukJyD9awPh75b7OwZZcRYH7J8VFsVJi09oFpY+ R2ABiEEVLyUDn60ohUwp0Ozo45C0htOFCNCKIx1UtC8QC8KrHUO1NH8ZnoHVFtUFc4BZ ptRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531fyXLdNiDzM9wzLGbBtWxIYaVCHTGUf8diqu5exuUWg7IprbOE YHVIel6QJ0Kx8gG+xuessNnztGSbyqSIlqvrnfhv0zB5ZS1dtg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxvZ/zwEqe66bIUmFhkl0on4dbg/WIKsmaZdfreatk9o1boGK49HFmw03j8f0cu8TUBBYa/f0BSDe93TpA8G7I= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8685:: with SMTP id l5mr168678lji.261.1611271536741; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:25:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210120044435.53509-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alex Henrie Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:25:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: add a config option for --no-fork-point To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:27 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > By the way, is the feature itself something we can test easily? I > think I saw the "we must interact with --root sensibly" test, but > the actual feature not being tested include > > - rebase.forkpoint set to false and then to true; does it use the > fork-point feature (your patch as-is would have failed this test); > > - rebase.forkpoint set to false and command line says --fork-point; > > - rebase.forkpoint set to true and command line says --no-fork-point; > > I offhand do not know if it is easy to observe it the fork-point > feature gets triggered, but it seems that the difference in > behaviour is big enough for you to care, so I am hoping you may > think of a way. This blog post describes the same problem that I had with fork-point: https://commaok.xyz/post/fork-point/ I didn't see any fork-point tests in the current codebase, but I can work on adding some. Do you want them in a separate patch (that would make the most sense to me), or squashed into the rebase.forkPoint patch? -Alex