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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 C5EC0C433E6 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8202D64E02 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237901AbhBDQQR (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:16:17 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f43.google.com ([209.85.208.43]:44670 "EHLO mail-ed1-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237454AbhBDQO4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:14:56 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f43.google.com with SMTP id q2so1723308eds.11 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 08:14:39 -0800 (PST) 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=c0oWINXk/qSQf0ODuYkRl4iIekQ3x/lpryM71aFqOAk=; b=lpkLgU4eYs8wBL4rSRte60YyDDF6+XxY5iTBOfZOo7XQApsR6a7MJHfx9TOhPG37zr VWnVRQUMMk1S722fIxzyeh1OVsBuZSuH2CPDeNUiiRqjpMtUxnN6IEkbCtCmbKRTR84x /wWMMDfvOhE/u/QgYuzg4S3pHv3xiuzTNJlNj8Le6QywHL0jKtD70xwGM7jHyleD01Ve nyLiX1ugiX7/Jrv7Sn2IyEAlDr5mHJWXY1Jn8THSIypGshwIy4VXrhwh4wztRyiZSWdf 7/KXEN/ZKvyvsYkYvhp/Zvae4guDm4lTayS4GSeYsq6A4jiXmhM9w0xLxiNVcLDpeEq3 Mjyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334f0fujjeVM4yBW/f5jm20YhobJvxqe5uXx5usKLbPm9C0mEgu 6lYQVXmeVGuZ0vkqGrpEAbMYOX/VvkM6XnvMKGE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzICCcBMHIMkcVUKyAo5YFhD/QiP2E3hweRe4lK1Vryjq0HSO3TJ1rV5m7wYArCMxnWojT4+xWOpp/sgpp5DQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1914:: with SMTP id e20mr8572146edz.89.1612455253958; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 08:14:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210124170405.30583-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20210129182050.26143-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20210129182050.26143-8-charvi077@gmail.com> <54d1ef0f-6a50-b2cb-3ac6-c313cf9dd2f3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54d1ef0f-6a50-b2cb-3ac6-c313cf9dd2f3@gmail.com> From: Eric Sunshine Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:14:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/9] t3437: test script for fixup [-C|-c] options in interactive rebase To: Phillip Wood Cc: Charvi Mendiratta , Git List , Christian Couder , Christian Couder , Phillip Wood Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:47 AM Phillip Wood wrote: > On 02/02/2021 02:01, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > Are the timestamps of these commits meaningful in this context? > > I think we want to ensure that the timestamp of the commits created with > the different author are different from the previous commits. We ought > to be checking that the author date of the rebased commit matches the > author date of the original commit and not the author date of the fixup > commit created with the different author. Such date-checking would indeed make sense and would remove any potential confusion a reader might have concerning the manual test_tick() calls. (It's not super important, but I still lean toward dropping the test_tick() calls until they are actually needed simply to avoid confusing readers. I asked about it in my review since their purpose was unclear and I was genuinely wondering if I was overlooking the reason for their presence. Future readers of the code may experience the same puzzlement without necessarily having ready access to the original author of the code from whom to receive an answer.)