Re: [RFC] git checkout $tree -- $path always rewrites files

2014-11-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Trying again from plain old gmail which I think does not send a multipart content. On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: Is this also related to git checkout $rev . not removing removed files? What you say about the difference in implementation

Re: [RFC] git checkout $tree -- $path always rewrites files

2014-11-08 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
, not an implementation glitch. Pardon HTML, misspellings and grammos, typed on a tablet. On Nov 7, 2014 11:10 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: Trying again from plain old gmail which I think does not send a multipart content. On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk

Re: [RFC] git checkout $tree -- $path always rewrites files

2014-11-08 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
First of all, thanks again for spending time on this. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: So just to be clear, the behavior we want is that: echo foo some-new-path git add some-new-path git

Re: [PATCH 04/13] Use git merge instead of git pull .

2013-08-24 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Ackermann wrote: --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -1784,17 +1784,6 @@ repository that you pulled from. fast-forwards,fast-forward; instead, your branch will just be

[PATCH] add test for 'git rebase --keep-empty'

2012-08-08 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com --- While trying to use patch-id instead of --ignore-if-in-upstream/--cherry-pick/cherry/etc, I noticed that patch-id ignores empty patches and I was surprised that tests still pass. This test case would be useful to protect

[PATCH v2] add tests for 'git rebase --keep-empty'

2012-08-09 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Add test cases for 'git rebase --keep-empty' with and without an empty commit already in upstream. The empty commit that is about to be rebased should be kept in both cases. Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com --- Added another test for when the upstream already

Re: [RFC/PATCH] rebase -i: use full onto sha1 in reflog

2012-08-09 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh index 0d2056f..dbc9de6 100644 --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ do_next () {

cherry-pick and 'log --no-walk' and ordering

2012-08-10 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
A while ago when I was looking at revision.c, I was surprised to see that commits are sorted even when --no-walk is passed, but as 8e64006 (Teach revision machinery about --no-walk, 2007-07-24) points out, this can be useful for doing $ git log --abbrev-commit --pretty=oneline --decorate --all

Re: cherry-pick and 'log --no-walk' and ordering

2012-08-10 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: There is also cherry-pick/revert, which I _think_ does not really want the revisions sorted. Yes, I think sequencer.c::prepare_revs() is wrong

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Re: cherry-pick and 'log --no-walk' and ordering

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: y...@google.com writes: [Administrivia: I somehow doubt y...@google.com would reach you, and futzed with the To: line above] :-( Sorry, sendemail.from now set. (I apparently answered y instead of just enter to accept

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Re: cherry-pick and 'log --no-walk' and ordering

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: ... so is a migration desired? Or just change the default for --no-walk from sorted to unsorted in git 2.0? I think the proper support for Johannes's case

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:27 PM, y...@google.com wrote: From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com 'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply the revisions starting at the oldest

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: y...@google.com writes: From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com 'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Re: cherry-pick and 'log --no-walk' and ordering

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: Makes sense. The shortlog example is a good example of sorting that completely reorders the commit graph sometimes even making sense for ranges. Thanks

Re: [PATCH] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: * Let's do this before I forget...; came up in discussion $gmane/203370 Thanks! That definitely confused me (and I suppose I stupidly didn't test with a proper range). Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 29

Re: [PATCH] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 6a4b635..dc501ee 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt

Re: send-email and in-reply-to = n

2012-08-14 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Stephen Boyd bebar...@gmail.com writes: Can we throw up a big warning or just outright fail if someone types 'n' or 'y' and hits enter for the in-reply-to question in git-send-email? I saw a git-send-email sent patch

Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate reconfirm interactive responses

2012-08-14 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: People answer 'y' to Who should the emails appear to be from? and 'n' to Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? for some unknown reason. Yeah, I know :-(. I did feel stupid already. Thanks for

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: To connect to the other mail I sent on this thread (in parallel with yours), do you think git cherrry-pick HEAD HEAD~1 should apply the commits in the same

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: So all of the above case give the right result in the end as long as the timestamps are chronological, and case 1) gives the right result regardless

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: Makes sense, I'll try to implement it that way. I was afraid that we would need to call prepare_revision_walk() once first and then if we afterwards find out

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description

2012-08-16 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 6a4b635..9404d08 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt @@ -578,16 +578,33 @@

[PATCH v2 0/3] revision (no-)walking in order

2012-08-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
to martinv...@gmail.com (not y...@google.com ;-) which saves a few keystrokes and matches some of my other accounts, so these patches will be the first ones from the new address. Martin von Zweigbergk (3): teach log --no-walk=unsorted, which avoids sorting demonstrate broken 'git cherry-pick three one

[PATCH v2 1/3] teach log --no-walk=unsorted, which avoids sorting

2012-08-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
or not to sort up to the caller, by allowing --no-walk={sorted,unsorted}, defaulting to 'sorted' for backward-compatibility reasons. Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 12 builtin/log.c | 2 +- builtin

[PATCH v2 2/3] demonstrate broken 'git cherry-pick three one two'

2012-08-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Cherry-picking commits out of order (w.r.t. commit time stamp) doesn't currently work. Add a test case to demonstrate it. Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3508-cherry-pick-many-commits.sh | 15 +++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3508

[PATCH v2 3/3] cherry-pick/revert: respect order of revisions to pick

2012-08-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/164794 Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- builtin/revert.c| 2 +- sequencer.c | 4 +++- t/t3508-cherry-pick-many-commits.sh | 2 +- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff

Re: [PATCH 2/4] merge-base: --is-ancestor A B

2012-08-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
(Resending as plain text, sorry about duplicate, Junio.) On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: In many scripted Porcelain commands, we find this idiom: if test $(git rev-parse --verify A) = $(git merge-base A B) then ... A is an ancestor of

Re: Aw: Re: git blame shows wrong Not commited yet entries

2012-09-01 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: And git blame $path probably should expect $path is something that appear in the tree of HEAD; apparently it does not. That probably makes sense. For anyone deciding to implement that, note that git blame -C [-C [-C]]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] rebase -i: Teach --edit-todo action

2012-09-17 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
|| usage + action=${1##--} + ;; It looks like this could be trivially combined with the previous case arm, making the match --continue|--skip|--abort|--edit-todo). --8-- Author: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com rebase usage: subcommands can

Re: [PATCH 4/4] rebase -i: Add tests for --edit-todo

2012-09-17 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/18/12 00:58, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com wrote: + test M = $(git cat-file commit HEAD^ | sed -ne \$p) + test L = $(git cat-file

[RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

2012-09-18 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Add more test cases to check that the topology after a rebase is as expected. Conflicts are not considered, but patch-equivalence is. --- Tests pass and fail as indicated by the suffix (_success/_failure). Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the intent of the test cases.

Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

2012-09-21 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes: do you agree that 'rebase --onto does not re-apply patches in onto' is desirable? This depends on how you look at --onto. Recall the most typical and the original

Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

2012-09-26 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
[+Chris Webb regarding git rebase --root] First of all, thanks for a meticulous review! On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 9/18/2012 8:31, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: Since here and in the following tests the test cases and test descriptions

Re: [RFC PATCH] add t3420-rebase-topology

2012-09-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Chris Webb ch...@arachsys.com wrote: You're right that rebase --root without --onto always creates a brand new root as a result of the implementation using a sentinel commit. Clearly this is what's wanted with --interactive That's not as clear as one might

Re: git rebase -p and patch equivalent commits

2012-10-16 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Damien Robert damien.olivier.robert+gm...@gmail.com wrote: Now feature is rebased against master. How would you rebase the branches patch1, patch2 and build so that they keep the same layout? I tried to rebase patch1 and patch2, hoping that rebase -p build

Re: [PATCH 0/5] rebase: improve the keep-empty

2013-05-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Hi, I think I have some patches at home that instead teach 'git am' the --keep-empty flag. Does that make sense? It's been a while since I looked at it, but I'll try to take a look tonight (PST). Martin On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 3/8] rebase: cherry-pick: fix sequence continuation

2013-05-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
As Junio asked in the previous iteration, shouldn't this have been in the first patch? On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: We are not in am mode. Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com --- git-rebase--cherrypick.sh | 10

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 4/8] rebase: cherry-pick: fix abort of cherry mode

2013-05-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Same here: should this have been in the first patch? If not, do you know for how long it has been broken (since which commit)? On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com --- git-rebase.sh | 1 +

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 2/8] rebase: cherry-pick: fix mode storage

2013-05-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Actually, are all of 2/8 - 7/8 fixes for things that broke in patch 1/8? On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: We don't use the 'rebase-apply'. Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com --- git-rebase--cherrypick.sh | 4

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 3/8] rebase: cherry-pick: fix sequence continuation

2013-05-28 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: As Junio asked in the previous iteration, shouldn't this have been in the first patch? No, the first patch is splitting

Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 3/8] rebase: cherry-pick: fix sequence continuation

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
:-) On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: One change splits, the other

[PATCH v2 3/7] add tests for rebasing of empty commits

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 24 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 58 +++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh b/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh index 58f4823..7ba1797 100755 ---

[PATCH v2 6/7] t3406: modernize style

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Update the following: - Quote 'setup' - Remove blank lines within test case body - Use test_commit instead of custom quick_one - Create branch topic from tag created by test_commit --- t/t3406-rebase-message.sh | 30 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21

[PATCH v2 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org --- t/lib-rebase.sh | 15 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 78 +++ 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100755 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh

[PATCH v2 4/7] add tests for rebasing root

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 129 ++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh b/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh index 40fe264..2429aa8 100755 --- a/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh +++

[PATCH v2 7/7] tests: move test for rebase messages from t3400 to t3406

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
t3406 is supposed to test messages from rebase operation, so let's move tests in t3400 that fit that description into 3406. Most of the functionality they tested, except for the messages, has now been subsumed by t3420. --- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 22 --

[PATCH v2 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 31 + t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 45 --- t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 10 +- t/t3409-rebase-preserve-merges.sh | 53 t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh | 250 ++ 5 files changed, 252

[PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/lib-rebase.sh | 17 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 85 +++ 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh b/t/lib-rebase.sh index 62b3887..16eeb1c 100644 --- a/t/lib-rebase.sh +++ b/t/lib-rebase.sh @@

[PATCH v2 0/7] Rebase topology test

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
After way too long, here is finally a new version of the tests I sent at: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/205796. I have split the test up into two files. They stil take quite some time to run. Martin von Zweigbergk (7): add simple tests of consistency across rebase

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: +# f +# / +# a---b---c---g---h +# \ +# d---G---i ... +test_run_rebase () { + result=$1 + shift + test_expect_$result rebase

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] add tests for rebasing root

2013-05-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: +test_run_rebase () { + result=$1 + shift + test_expect_$result rebase $* --onto --root with merge-base does not go to root + reset_rebase

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Martin

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org wrote: Am 30.05.2013 07:30, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: +# f +# / +# a---b---c---g---h

Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-05-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: +# a---b---c +# \ \ +# d---e \ +#\ \ \ +# n---o---w---v +# \ +# z +#TODO

[PATCH v3 0/7] Rebase topology test

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Patches are now expected to be dropped iff they are on upstream. I've also followed all of Johannes's other suggestions except for the one about topo-order. Martin von Zweigbergk (7): add simple tests of consistency across rebase types add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

[PATCH v3 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org --- t/lib-rebase.sh | 15 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 78 +++ 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100755 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh

[PATCH v3 3/7] add tests for rebasing of empty commits

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 24 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 58 +++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh b/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh index 58f4823..7ba1797 100755 ---

[PATCH v3 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/lib-rebase.sh | 17 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 85 +++ 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh b/t/lib-rebase.sh index 62b3887..16eeb1c 100644 --- a/t/lib-rebase.sh +++ b/t/lib-rebase.sh @@

[PATCH v3 7/7] tests: move test for rebase messages from t3400 to t3406

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
t3406 is supposed to test messages from rebase operation, so let's move tests in t3400 that fit that description into 3406. Most of the functionality they tested, except for the messages, has now been subsumed by t3420. --- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 22 --

[PATCH v3 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 31 + t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 45 --- t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 10 +- t/t3409-rebase-preserve-merges.sh | 53 t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh | 252 ++ 5 files changed, 254

[PATCH v3 4/7] add tests for rebasing root

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 129 ++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh b/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh index 81e3d59..659a7b3 100755 --- a/t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh +++

[PATCH v3 6/7] t3406: modernize style

2013-05-31 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Update the following: - Quote 'setup' - Remove blank lines within test case body - Use test_commit instead of custom quick_one - Create branch topic from tag created by test_commit --- t/t3406-rebase-message.sh | 30 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21

[PATCH v4 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-06-01 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- The reason is that this check is incomplete: test_revision_subjects 'd i e u' HEAD~2 HEAD^2 HEAD^ HEAD Nice catch! This should fix it. I couldn't use the method you suggested because of how test_revision_subjects works (repeated revisions are ignored), but this makes the check stricter

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: create mode 100755 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh Just FYI, there's another test case with the same number (t3420-rebase-autostash) in pu. I don't know how you normally handle such cases. -- To unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: create mode 100755 t/t3420-rebase-topology-linear.sh Just FYI, there's another

[PATCH v5 7/7] tests: move test for rebase messages from t3400 to t3406

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
t3406 is supposed to test messages from rebase operation, so let's move tests in t3400 that fit that description into 3406. Most of the functionality they tested, except for the messages, has now been subsumed by t3420. --- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 22 --

[PATCH v5 0/7] Rebase topology test

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
The only change since v4 should be that t3420 was renamed t3421. Martin von Zweigbergk (7): add simple tests of consistency across rebase types add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present add tests for rebasing of empty commits add tests for rebasing root add tests

[PATCH v5 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/lib-rebase.sh | 17 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 85 +++ 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh b/t/lib-rebase.sh index 62b3887..16eeb1c 100644 --- a/t/lib-rebase.sh +++ b/t/lib-rebase.sh @@

[PATCH v5 3/7] add tests for rebasing of empty commits

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 24 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 58 +++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh b/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh index 58f4823..7ba1797 100755 ---

[PATCH v5 6/7] t3406: modernize style

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Update the following: - Quote 'setup' - Remove blank lines within test case body - Use test_commit instead of custom quick_one - Create branch topic from tag created by test_commit --- t/t3406-rebase-message.sh | 30 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21

[PATCH v5 4/7] add tests for rebasing root

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 129 ++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh b/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh index 81e3d59..659a7b3 100755 --- a/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh +++

[PATCH v5 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org --- t/lib-rebase.sh | 15 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 78 +++ 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100755 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh

[PATCH v5 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
--- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 31 + t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 45 --- t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 10 +- t/t3409-rebase-preserve-merges.sh | 53 t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh | 258 ++ 5 files changed, 260

Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-03 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: + +# checks that the revisions in $2 represent a linear range with the +# subjects in $1 +test_linear_range () { + ! { git log --format=%p $2 | sane_grep ;} An interesting way to spell: test $(git rev-list

Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-04 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: Am 6/4/2013 7:14, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: + +# checks that the revisions in $2 represent a linear range with the +# subjects in $1

Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-06-04 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes: --- +#TODO: make all flavors of rebase use --topo-order +test_run_rebase success 'e n o' '' +test_run_rebase success 'e n o' -m +test_run_rebase success 'n o e' -i I

[PATCH v6 3/7] add tests for rebasing of empty commits

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 24 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 58 +++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh b/t

[PATCH v6 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/lib-rebase.sh | 17 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 85 +++ 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh b/t/lib-rebase.sh index 1e0ff28..4b74ae4

[PATCH v6 1/7] add simple tests of consistency across rebase types

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/lib-rebase.sh | 16 t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 78 +++ 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+) create mode 100755 t/t3421

[PATCH v6 7/7] tests: move test for rebase messages from t3400 to t3406

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
t3406 is supposed to test messages from rebase operation, so let's move tests in t3400 that fit that description into 3406. Most of the functionality they tested, except for the messages, has now been subsumed by t3420. Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3400

[PATCH v6 4/7] add tests for rebasing root

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh | 129 ++ 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh b/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh index f19f0d0..e67add6 100755

[PATCH v6 6/7] t3406: modernize style

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Update the following: - Quote 'setup' - Remove blank lines within test case body - Use test_commit instead of custom quick_one - Create branch topic from tag created by test_commit Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3406-rebase-message.sh | 30

[PATCH v6 0/8] Rebase topology test

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Changes since v5: * Improved test_linear_range * Changed TODOs to be about consistency, not --topo-order Martin von Zweigbergk (7): add simple tests of consistency across rebase types add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present add tests for rebasing of empty commits add

[PATCH v6 5/7] add tests for rebasing merged history

2013-06-07 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com --- t/t3400-rebase.sh | 31 + t/t3401-rebase-partial.sh | 45 --- t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 10 +- t/t3409-rebase-preserve-merges.sh | 53 t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh | 258

Re: Bad attitudes and problems in the Git community (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin)

2013-06-10 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote: You need two sides to have an argument. I disagree. Unless you mean than, whenever a part behaves in a hostile and

Re: Bad attitudes and problems in the Git community (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin)

2013-06-10 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
Yes, sorry. I find this whole story quite amusing (albeit distracting and unnecessary), but sorry for adding to the spam. I'll be quiet now. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv

Re: [PATCH v4 45/45] tests: update topology tests

2013-06-10 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com --- t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh | 15 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [PATCH] reset: trivial refactoring

2013-06-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote: @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int reset_index(const unsigned char *sha1, int reset_type, int quiet) if (unpack_trees(nr, desc, opts)) return -1; - if (reset_type == MIXED ||

Re: [PATCH 1/3] rebase: guard against missing files in read_basic_state()

2013-06-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: A more troublesome is that nobody seems to check the return value of this function. If head-name, onto or orig-head is missing, is that an error condition that should make

Re: [PATCH mz/rebase-tests] rebase topology tests: fix commit names on case-insensitive file systems

2013-06-18 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote: The recently introduced tests used uppercase letters to denote cherry-picks of commits having the corresponding lowercase letter names. The helper functions also set up tags with the names of the commits. But this

Re: detached HEAD before root commit - possible?

2013-06-23 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote: In other words, HEAD always either points to an unborn or existing branch or an existing commit. It's not clear to me what it would mean to detach from an unborn branch. I think it should mean that the next commit

Re: Operations on unborn branch

2012-11-27 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes: simplify a lot of things (maybe I'm biased because of the things I have happened to work on?) Yes. Do not waste time on it. Yes, no way I would waste time on that; I

[RFC/PATCH 2/2] reset: learn to reset on unborn branch

2012-11-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
When run on an unborn branch, git reset currently fails with: fatal: Failed to resolve 'HEAD' as a valid ref. Fix this by interpreting it as a reset to the empty tree. If --patch is given, we currently pass the revision specifier, as given on the command line, to interactive_reset(). On an

[RFC/PATCH 0/2] Fix git reset on unborn branch

2012-11-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
I decided to address this before cherry-pick on unborn branch. RFC mostly because I'm not sure about the user interface. When we have agreed on that, I will add documentation. Martin von Zweigbergk (2): reset: learn to reset to tree reset: learn to reset on unborn branch builtin/reset.c

[RFC/PATCH 1/2] reset: learn to reset to tree

2012-11-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason that git reset should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So make git reset $rev^{tree} work just like git reset $rev, except that the former will not update HEAD (since there is no commit to point it to). Disallow

Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] reset: learn to reset to tree

2012-11-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com writes: In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason that git reset should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So make git reset $rev^{tree

Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] reset: learn to reset to tree

2012-11-29 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: [...]These two commands, reset and checkout, share that the source we grab the blobs out of only need to be a tree and does not have to be a commit, and the only difference between them is where the blobs we grabbed out

Re: Operations on unborn branch

2012-11-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: You have to special case the edges whichever way you go. [...] If I understand you correctly, you're saying that revision walking would need a different special case. This is the most obvious difference, it seems. git

Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] reset: learn to reset to tree

2012-11-30 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk martinv...@gmail.com wrote: Slightly off topic, but another difference (or somehow another aspect of the same difference?) that has tripped me up a few times is that git checkout $rev . only affects added and modified files (in $rev

  1   2   3   >