From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193D2C433DB for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 09:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAC364DB1 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 09:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230039AbhBEJqZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:46:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48104 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229750AbhBEJnm (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:43:42 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09E0C0613D6 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:42:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id w124so6823106oia.6 for ; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 01:42:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SayrXfWZzRp+Xrzd1dWdPqi1qjfCovblBw+32zGYt+4=; b=XNunXoTlH21tNJ8JVPaxFVw9rCp4Ph7MP2IwA2Z0GPuM2AD+pDuwLcbqU8qjwn856x 3rkkobZz4KxONGZyoWfjp0BJSz4rTrGmU03s2oBYckabDGQM6Gu8JSc1CeTQaXr+nvH+ DepCIamyauH58YKG03ANSi+dRUhFStGdRO5VTEdv+QrbmuDsKOim1OShHVh/InF4ig3+ HmVykONRVFLjVPXvjGOFB2uN9ABzYtd1V04Ii5bJqTWJcElWKHKkblX4YOLuuMDp9Ia9 rcLQN7Ej6ghOO+hHaBA6oGkStmID0Vdk218ONvd/R5nhmvn55b1uwE7CDbqgwD1WpZjH CcTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SayrXfWZzRp+Xrzd1dWdPqi1qjfCovblBw+32zGYt+4=; b=GeRmpskvF/Ckc4t3MqgswXSHGljDIbsAkxfgT3AAb77K7np9gDpB8mmu8VlTKHfiIp RrKQmkie0ajdoYHr84JmIp9lbig9YNuEYGurYluMh6NqBgS6uUt2esBtaGEFfefbtMIa Rrr5otQPqGLH6Yz/elxmJPx0382pekgSyIa71Ri/Wsq2vZ/cNv5eugPyQPLAsq5p5olf w3U/xWbmesOT25rK9hLmwl0HaGnBqBCGJ2UJKIagVKf+Z0WZaT0yl7PcaIKDvSgSABE3 2zDSluqc4eWK05zcbvYmWztaPk8/isZAxEGYN+A0P2MCoXgd5/xJwH0UJcCrXxNv+dJX R0YQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gBHDlygxVZzQIRduCxQ1PYEA9EjMjwnnls/iyj0IdpGg/DxjH WgD0boM0+gmre/DWQVSsDwJm5gVROM/D4JwTl1E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz47LbOx29/W24zR9idK6fqQ5azKxsrYvqsNw2Fm3xceAUr3F7RSU8Sg97nm9P6TPMO3TNUbiHVk8oOrvmUlDU= X-Received: by 2002:aca:b255:: with SMTP id b82mr2435496oif.98.1612518175994; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 01:42:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210129182050.26143-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20210204190507.26487-1-charvi077@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Charvi Mendiratta Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 15:12:44 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8][Outreachy] rebase -i: add options to fixup command To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git List , Christian Couder , Phillip Wood , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 13:00, Eric Sunshine wrote: [...] > Thanks for working on this and re-rolling. Unfortunately, it seems > that v4 already landed in Junio's `next` branch which means that he > won't be replacing v4 wholesale as would have been the case if it was > still in the `seen` branch. Once patches are in `next`, improvements > are made by building changes atop them (incrementally) rather than > replacing them. Whether or not it makes sense for you to spend time > re-doing these patches as incremental changes is not clear. In fact... > Okay, I admit I was not aware of this, before. > > The major change in this version is to remove the working of `fixup -C` > > with amend! commit and will include in the another patch series, in order > > to avoid the confusion. So there are following changes : > > * removed the patch (rebase -i : teach --autosquash to work with amend!) > > * updated the test script (t3437-*.sh), changed the test setup and removed > > two tests. > > > > Earlier every test includes the commit message having subject starting > > with amend! So, now it includes a setup of different branch for testing > > fixup with options and also updated all the tests. > > Removed the test - "skip fixup -C removes amend! from message" and also > > "sequence of fixup, fixup -C & squash --signoff works" as I think it would > > be better to test this also in the branch with amend! commit with different > > author. (Will add these tests with amend! commit implementation) > > Despite these being nice cleanups to the standalone series, I'm not > sure it's worth spending your time creating new patches to undo these > from `next`. Removing them only to add them back later is not > necessarily going to help "unconfuse" someone reading the commits in > the permanent project history. > Yes, I was also thinking that let's not remove the working of `fixup -C` with amend! commit as it's true that it is intended to work like that way. > > * changed the flag type from enum todo_item_flags to unsigned > > * Replaced fixup_-* with fixup-* in lib-rebase.sh > > * fixup a small nit in Documentation > > These changes are still worthwhile and can easily be done > incrementally atop what is already in next, I would think. > I agree, these fixes are required. So, I am not sure but now to do these fixup shall I send another patch cleaning this patch series(v4) and rebase the patch on the 'next' branch ? Is it the right way ? Thanks and Regards, Charvi