Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Thu Jun 27 13:52:33 -0700 2013:
Two issues here, which I'll locally amend (no need to resend):
Great! Thank you for your help and patience.
cat expected -EOF
pick ...
...
EOF
test_cmp expected
Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Wed Jun 26 17:20:32 -0700 2013:
Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Wed Jun 26 16:48:57 -0700 2013:
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
In order to test this, I wrote a helper function to dump the rebase -i
todo list. Would you like
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
Updated for recommended here-doc style.
Thanks.
+test_auto_fixup_fixup () {
+ git reset --hard base
+ echo 1 file1
+ git add -u
+ test_tick
+ git commit -m $1! first
+ echo 2 file1
+ git add -u
+
Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Tue Jun 25 16:03:52 -0700 2013:
Thomas's patch didn't do this: fixup! or squash! after the first is
simply discarded, so you see:
pick d78c915 original
fixup 0c6388e fixup! original
fixup d15b556 fixup! original
fixup 1e39bcd fixup!
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
In order to test this, I wrote a helper function to dump the rebase -i
todo list. Would you like this introduced in its own patch, or
combined? See below.
Depends on how involved the addition of the tests that actually use
the helper, but in general
Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Wed Jun 26 16:48:57 -0700 2013:
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
In order to test this, I wrote a helper function to dump the rebase -i
todo list. Would you like this introduced in its own patch, or
combined? See below.
Depends on how
Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Mon Jun 17 07:27:20 -0700 2013:
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
I'm not sure it's worth arguing about whether the fixup! fixup! is a
symptom of some underlying problem, and changing rebase is only tapering
over the symptom; or whether it's
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
Just reponding for the procedual part for now.
So if I don't want to break the discussion, should I append the unedited
format-patch output to my message after scissors, or should I send it
as a whole new message with --in-reply-to? Or something
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index c84854a..6b2e1c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -389,7 +389,9 @@ squash/fixup series.
the same ..., automatically
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
I agree that it is better to preserve information as long as feasible.
If we are going to strip it, it may as well be later. That is Thomas's
rearrange_squash patch, which I will send again.
Thanks.
The next question is, do we go all the way and
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
I guess I made typoes in the examples that made then unusable...
I think it is fine not to be too smart, as long as we do not lose
information that would help the user to compensate.
After all, autosquash will give the user an opportunity to eyeball
Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Tue Jun 25 14:45:07 -0700 2013:
After all, autosquash will give the user an opportunity to eyeball
the result of automatic rearrangement. If the user did this:
git commit -m original
git commit --fixup original ;# obviously fixing the
Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Tue Jun 25 14:33:18 -0700 2013:
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
Just reponding for the procedual part for now.
So if I don't want to break the discussion, should I append the unedited
format-patch output to my message after scissors, or
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Isn't it a bit of an academic question?
...
And once you have that, it seems a nicer and cleaner idea to generate
'fixup! A' each time, instead of a successive sequence of
fixup! A
fixup! fixup! A
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Conveniently enough we have seen both already ;-) Andrew's version for
commit.c could use a bit of refactorization, since it inserts the same
code in two places, but then it's about the same complexity as the
change for rebase.
I'm not sure it's worth
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Fri Jun 14 12:31:57 -0700 2013:
It happened to work and I added a test. But then it occurred to me that
it might have been better to fix commit --fixup/--squash to
Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch writes:
Isn't it a bit of an academic question?
...
And once you have that, it seems a nicer and cleaner idea to generate
'fixup! A' each time, instead of a successive sequence of
fixup! A
fixup! fixup! A
fixup! fixup! fixup! A
...
As to reordering,
Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Fri Jun 14 12:31:57 -0700 2013:
It happened to work and I added a test. But then it occurred to me that
it might have been better to fix commit --fixup/--squash to strip the
fixup! or squash! from the referenced commit in the first place.
Anyhow,
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Andrew Pimlott and...@pimlott.net writes:
Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Fri Jun 14 12:31:57 -0700 2013:
It happened to work and I added a test. But then it occurred to me that
it might have been better to fix commit --fixup/--squash to
19 matches
Mail list logo
