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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 9224B1F5AD for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 20:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726703AbgDJUmN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:13 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59175 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726651AbgDJUmN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:13 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072D0618D2; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:12 -0400 (EDT) (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=Epr3KA49RgFSlyCHNAvNIJvismk=; b=tEfcjM GL7PjM/y6dNulgJubICVoTZJDIDs3uHKLkVuJKGD80RJs9GUMQCMHIrWtTxyQ13i HG4HDKMCxT1i0l6qquRzP/ds+7ttWs6YukYgYObmwFhY/ba/IDVFlh3qQmezb8WT NMEIfD8V5+fpSb1NHNvP10t38shfeT51xk8ec= 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=e+IAQRrZiMtwzaykBTPzopWBcasG93eQ z+NkqW0RVaex01SHGuBhbQjQxbMwZHjyQI+wDKlkYXSGPgQCz4GL5RupIFxk+wMB vxOTGzVFuqYlWZg0xw7ahIWsTJjkrHkvr8jt80meykxCCubqZsR9K0DQqlNNpzDx AqUKeoSuhbY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2198618D1; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:11 -0400 (EDT) (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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7806B618CF; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, bturner@atlassian.com, sami@boukortt.com, Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rebase -i: mark commits that begin empty in todo editor References: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:42:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:51:31 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C0D4B46A-7B6B-11EA-880C-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" writes: > I wanted to base this commit on jt/rebase-allow-duplicate, in particular to > add a patch moving his new --[no-]keep-cherry-picks arguments to be close to > the --empty={drop,keep,ask} and --[no-]keep-empty flags, since all three are > related. But unfortunately that series was based on 2.25, and my series > needs to be based on 2.26. Even though this one might qualify as a regression fix to be based on an older track, the other one is a new "feature" and is not even in 'next' yet, so there is no reason why we must keep its base on maintenance tracks (perhaps its earliest round was first queued when 2.25 was the latest tagged release?) So I am OK to rebase the other topic to v2.26.0; would that help? I already saw there was some entanglement with the other topic in one of the patches in this series, so...