Hi Ian,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation
> as an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> > > In a successful run with older git I get a reflog like this:
> > >
> > > 4833d74 HEAD@{0}: rebase finished: returning to
> > > refs/heads/with-preexisting
> > > 4833d74 HEAD@{1}: debrebase new-upstream 2.1-1: rebase: Add another
> > > new upstream file
> > > cabd5ec HEAD@{2}: debrebase new-upstream 2.1-1: rebase: Edit the .c
> > > file
> > > 0b362ce HEAD@{3}: debrebase new-upstream 2.1-1: rebase: Add a new
> > > upstream file
> > > 29653e5 HEAD@{4}: debrebase new-upstream 2.1-1: rebase: checkout
> > > 29653e5a17bee4ac23a68bba3e12bc1f52858ac3
> > > 85e0c46 HEAD@{5}: debrebase: launder for new upstream
> ...
> > > This breaks the test because my test suite is checking that I set
> > > GIT_REFLOG_ACTION appropriately.
> > >
> > > If you want I can provide a minimal test case but this should suffice
> > > to see the bug I hope...
> >
> > This should be plenty for me to get going. Thank you!
>
> Happy hunting.
I'll have to take a (lengthy) dinner break now, but this is what I have so
far: a regression test that verifies the breakage (see the
`fix-reflog-action` branch at https://github.com/dscho/git). I'll continue
after dinner and am confident that this bug will be fixed within the next
four hours.
> While you're looking at this, I observe that the fact that the `rebase
> finished' message also does not honour GIT_REFLOG_ACTION appears to be
> a pre-existing bug.
I noticed that, too, but at this point I am only fixing regressions. We
can try to fix this long-standing bug in the v2.20 cycle.
Ciao,
Johannes
> (In general one often can't rely on GIT_REFLOG_ACTION still being set
> because the rebase might have been interrupted and restarted, which I
> think is why my test case looks for it in the initial `checkout'
> message.)
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
>
> If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
> a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
>
