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 720761F5AD for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 21:14:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726706AbgDKVO1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:14:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59148 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726167AbgDKVO0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:14:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3763B41062; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:14:22 -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=oYW9DHeqzwXtnzzY97xzNnSD6lo=; b=WCJT1C HInz2W0w3KlpyPHBwjOxrAvUUQAOwqqJDG04FSvsrIhfiOil+0WhCUTZ9rDbhZEz aRS815iqoyYb3mE0PoguCOybEOsde//dkrFQ3XaYBPlCdbyDFjO3n56Ved3bSF71 DKAverdlADh4V0OMfaE+7PYVeo/MTjjlHFoVc= 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=q1fmXSlAleXgaP8WvtMFGgqL2HT8cASK uBb/oJ6Ajcj2S/Dv6vGodt9ILcbA/lyt+VrHstKjbj5hbK3WN2redjno+lkUb8Vm f1LUJdZMIlnMW4queYnngN+MZBbJMepNI+cS9ny2cc3p9cyFlgiKROe5jIrrZomB b4jDYIsb/8k= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F27541061; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:14:22 -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 AC0C64105F; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:14:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Jonathan Tan , Git Mailing List , Phillip Wood , Johannes Schindelin , Bryan Turner , Sami Boukortt , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rebase -i: mark commits that begin empty in todo editor References: Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:14:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:07:34 -0700") 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: 69BD7846-7C39-11EA-A342-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 writes: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:30 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Elijah Newren writes: >> >> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:29 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> >> >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >> >> >> > 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... >> > ... >> > Thanks, but wouldn't I want to base his patch on top of mine rather >> > than vice versa? (Since mine might be labelled bugfix, and his is a >> > new feature?) >> >> If you are willing to rebase the --[no-]keep-empty so that it does >> not depend on v2.26, that may give us a better result. I just got >> an impression that you somehow wanted to base your changes on the >> newer codebase, but if you want to base both on the older codebase, >> that is fine by me, too. > > Rebasing my stuff on the older codebase wouldn't make sense; the > relevant code would be riddled with conflicts. Rather, I was thinking > of rebasing Jonathan's changes and building his series on top of mine > (and then touching up the docs so the flags reference each other). That's OK as well. I didn't know if you wanted the "fix" to be only for 2.26.x and forward, or wanted to be applicable to 2.25.x series (which the other topic that is a new feature happened to also work with). Thanks.