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 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 C91A81F87F for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733180AbeKMWyk (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:54:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:55720 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732728AbeKMWyk (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:54:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6121161DA; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:56:37 -0500 (EST) 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=7VoRr6z6P7FS/HatxboHyF1hx6E=; b=bOqEGM ztMlkeN8eHR2qvvYgfcMFic86yvRI8lodvize1+n9Zv2v1GK1d76Tep4JLWw5wyU qBqBpmxnr5Kt++GIAVhgN6a/cbKwIi5XVYsV7/A8BAUcQ/06oPrVl6Vm27OEGf8q 6qqyACJt8orAxgHHyaYrOr+FP0LzTjhpKJA38= 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=k8NkaCbZKFL7k+Feis0/HAqlTxnzlih4 MCWvgCvcy9sLxMoHWecgcpIEQvPqrM/5W7pTMwfo7u6D1qSZDMpVGTFxRPYElWUK aDZppCziKx4l6jeoPjXpxbQnBgOjMhVM0ddwoMePqVQCcXC/MT1ed68Y/nukboIc ZxdaoYu8p1s= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EAF1161D9; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:56:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.187.50.168]) (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 9D4A21161D8; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:56:36 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rebase -r: demonstrate bug with conflicting merges References: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 21:56:35 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:47:34 +0100 (STD)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8E091598-E743-11E8-92AE-063AD72159A7-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > You misunderstand. In this case it is crucial to read the regression test > first. The fix does not make much sense before one understands the > condition under which the order of the code statements matters. I am not sure what you mean. It sounds as if you want to use diff-orderfile to present change for t/ before changes to other files are presented in format-patch output to help readers, and I think that may make sense for certain cases. It may even include this case. But that is not incompatible with "avoid showing the patch that updates the code to fix breakages separately, ending up with showing the changes to t/ that are mostly about s/_failure/_success/ and readers are forced to go back to the previous patch to remind themselves what the broken scenario was about; by keeping it in a single patch, the readers can get the tests in one piece".