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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 CF6181F9FD for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231995AbhBWIWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:22:10 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65385 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231827AbhBWIWH (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:22:07 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B98190409; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:21:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=U4D367vBnB4QUZat7Fe/hxWE0ys=; b=gd8Kg+ qmIXS39xRwbbV0nAhrG7CrA/id5ycj8PLmvLIDzcMzoEpRYwpUpqYjzAVxHdIYFf QvYDYYOahXIR2Ja8IlBbp00XmbV6l5EtEPb24/BrNJMO9AzX5/PweKU0sBjmzJBK xMPPC6yZ6jk8MfFLdk4nttxLsX8knOb5fyEZU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lrweaGi9yREcLTqezyLG9YE1XyvV0eb+ 8sV30XZv50ufGqKEdF0/cES8yhPMm72Le1/OyccJl9DSCRFnmuNTyo/7zvhPsbxH EEVlyWIh7nWxcF4M9qNmAS/bHO3eayajwW2kzJbZ+Q49yWd4e5/ZfaIVhhP0NxuQ tCKejKxjJ98= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233AA90408; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:21:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A59AE90407; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:21:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Denton Liu Cc: Alex Henrie , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rebase: add a config option for --no-fork-point References: <20210223071840.44267-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:21:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Denton Liu's message of "Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:32:20 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1ED5B1C4-75B0-11EB-B481-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Denton Liu writes: > I don't think this test is quite necessary. In other parts of the > code, we've already tested that local configs have priority over > global configs. We can assume that config machinery works so we > don't need to test it here. I am not so sure if we should place so much trust in the code of "rebase", or any other subsystem for that matter, that it uses the configuration API and parse-options API correctly. The do_test_rebase helper introduced here would be useful clean-up on its own, so I'd rather take it as-is.