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

[Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk
> <martinvonz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk
>>> <martinvonz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@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 $* --onto drops patches in onto" "
>>>>>> +             reset_rebase &&
>>>>>> +             git rebase $* --onto h f i &&
>>>>>> +             test_cmp_rev h HEAD~2 &&
>>>>>> +             test_linear_range 'd i' h..
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't this expectation wrong? The upstream of the rebased branch is f, and
>>>>> it does not contain G. Hence, G should be replayed. Since h is the
>>>>> reversal of g, the state at h is the same as at c, and applying G should
>>>>> succeed (it is the same change as g). Therefore, I think the correct
>>>>> expectation is:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 test_linear_range 'd G i' h..
>>>>
>>>> Good question! It is really not obvious what the right answer is. Some
>>>> arguments in favor of dropping 'G':
>>>
>>> I think the answer is obvious; G should not be dropped. Maybe it made
>>> sense to drop g in upstream, but d fixes an issue, and it makes sense
>>> to apply G on upstream.
>>
>> Well, maybe I was wrong in thinking that dropping 'G' in 'git rebase
>> --onto f h i' is bad. It seems to complicate things a lot, so maybe we
>> should just decide that it's fine to do that (to drop 'G' in that
>> case). Since that's mostly how it has worked forever and no one seems
>> to have reported a problem with it, I'm probably just being paranoid.
>> Thoughts?
>
> Huh? I said the opposite; G should *not* be dropped.

I suspect you missed that I said 'git rebase --onto f h i', not 'git
rebase --onto h f i'. Sorry, I should have pointed that out.