git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, predatoramigo@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: Implement --merge via git-rebase--interactive
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:21:05 +0100 (STD)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811121614190.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181108060158.27145-3-newren@gmail.com>

Hi Elijah,

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:

> Interactive rebases are implemented in terms of cherry-pick rather than
> the merge-recursive builtin, but cherry-pick also calls into the recursive
> merge machinery by default and can accept special merge strategies and/or
> special strategy options.  As such, there really is not any need for
> having both git-rebase--merge and git-rebase--interactive anymore.
> 
> Delete git-rebase--merge.sh and have the --merge option be implemented
> by the now built-in interactive machinery.

Okay.

> Note that this change fixes a few known test failures (see t3421).

Nice!

> testcase modification notes:
>   t3406: --interactive and --merge had slightly different progress output
>          while running; adjust a test to match
>   t3420: these test precise output while running, but rebase--am,
>          rebase--merge, and rebase--interactive all were built on very
>          different commands (am, merge-recursive, cherry-pick), so the
>          tests expected different output for each type.  Now we expect
>          --merge and --interactive to have the same output.
>   t3421: --interactive fixes some bugs in --merge!  Wahoo!
>   t3425: topology linearization was inconsistent across flavors of rebase,
>          as already noted in a TODO comment in the testcase.  This was not
>          considered a bug before, so getting a different linearization due
>          to switching out backends should not be considered a bug now.

Ideally, the test would be fixed, then. If it fails for other reasons than
a real regression, it is not a very good regression test, is it.

>   t5407: different rebase types varied slightly in how many times checkout
>          or commit or equivalents were called based on a quick comparison
>          of this tests and previous ones which covered different rebase
>          flavors.  I think this is just attributable to this difference.

This concerns me.

In bigger repositories (no, I am not talking about Linux kernel sized
ones, I consider those small-ish) there are a ton of files, and checkout
and commit (and even more so reset) sadly do not have a runtime complexity
growing with the number of modified files, but with the number of tracked
files (and some commands even with the number of worktree files).

So a larger number of commit/checkout operations makes me expect
performance regressions.

In this light, could you elaborate a bit on the differences you see
between rebase -i and rebase -m?

>   t9903: --merge uses the interactive backend so the prompt expected is
>          now REBASE-i.

We should be able to make that test pass, still, by writing out a special
file (e.g. $state_dir/opt_m) and testing for that. Users are oddly upset
when their expectations are broken... (and I actually agree with them.)

> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> index 3407d835bd..35084f5681 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> @@ -504,15 +504,7 @@ See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
>  INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS
>  --------------------
>  
> -git-rebase has many flags that are incompatible with each other,
> -predominantly due to the fact that it has three different underlying
> -implementations:
> -
> - * one based on linkgit:git-am[1] (the default)
> - * one based on git-merge-recursive (merge backend)
> - * one based on linkgit:git-cherry-pick[1] (interactive backend)
> -

Could we retain this part, with `s/three/two/` and `/git-merge/d`? *Maybe*
`s/interactive backend/interactive\/merge backend/`

> -Flags only understood by the am backend:
> +The following options:
>  
>   * --committer-date-is-author-date
>   * --ignore-date
> @@ -520,15 +512,12 @@ Flags only understood by the am backend:
>   * --ignore-whitespace
>   * -C
>  
> -Flags understood by both merge and interactive backends:
> +are incompatible with the following options:
>  
>   * --merge
>   * --strategy
>   * --strategy-option
>   * --allow-empty-message
> -
> -Flags only understood by the interactive backend:
> -
>   * --[no-]autosquash
>   * --rebase-merges
>   * --preserve-merges
> @@ -539,7 +528,7 @@ Flags only understood by the interactive backend:
>   * --edit-todo
>   * --root when used in combination with --onto
>  
> -Other incompatible flag pairs:
> +In addition, the following pairs of options are incompatible:
>  
>   * --preserve-merges and --interactive
>   * --preserve-merges and --signoff

The rest of the diff is funny to read, but the post image makes a lot of
sense.

> diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> index be004406a6..d55bbb9eb9 100644
> --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void imply_interactive(struct rebase_options *opts, const char *option)
>  	case REBASE_PRESERVE_MERGES:
>  		break;
>  	case REBASE_MERGE:
> -		/* we silently *upgrade* --merge to --interactive if needed */
> +		/* we now implement --merge via --interactive */
>  	default:
>  		opts->type = REBASE_INTERACTIVE; /* implied */
>  		break;
> @@ -475,10 +475,6 @@ static int run_specific_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts)
>  		backend = "git-rebase--am";
>  		backend_func = "git_rebase__am";
>  		break;
> -	case REBASE_MERGE:
> -		backend = "git-rebase--merge";
> -		backend_func = "git_rebase__merge";
> -		break;
>  	case REBASE_PRESERVE_MERGES:
>  		backend = "git-rebase--preserve-merges";
>  		backend_func = "git_rebase__preserve_merges";
> @@ -1156,6 +1152,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	if (options.type == REBASE_MERGE) {
> +		imply_interactive(&options, "--merge");
> +	}
> +
>  	if (options.root && !options.onto_name)
>  		imply_interactive(&options, "--root without --onto");
>  

Okay, this makes sense.

> diff --git a/git-legacy-rebase.sh b/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> index da27bfca5a..4abcceed06 100755
> --- a/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> +++ b/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ then
>  	state_dir="$apply_dir"
>  elif test -d "$merge_dir"
>  then
> +	type=interactive
>  	if test -d "$merge_dir"/rewritten
>  	then
>  		type=preserve-merges
> @@ -225,10 +226,7 @@ then
>  		preserve_merges=t
>  	elif test -f "$merge_dir"/interactive
>  	then
> -		type=interactive
>  		interactive_rebase=explicit
> -	else
> -		type=merge
>  	fi
>  	state_dir="$merge_dir"
>  fi
> @@ -469,6 +467,7 @@ then
>  	test -z "$interactive_rebase" && interactive_rebase=implied
>  fi
>  
> +actually_interactive=
>  if test -n "$interactive_rebase"
>  then
>  	if test -z "$preserve_merges"
> @@ -477,11 +476,12 @@ then
>  	else
>  		type=preserve-merges
>  	fi
> -
> +	actually_interactive=t
>  	state_dir="$merge_dir"
>  elif test -n "$do_merge"
>  then
> -	type=merge
> +	interactive_rebase=implied
> +	type=interactive
>  	state_dir="$merge_dir"
>  else
>  	type=am
> @@ -493,21 +493,13 @@ then
>  	git_format_patch_opt="$git_format_patch_opt --progress"
>  fi
>  
> -if test -n "$git_am_opt"; then
> -	incompatible_opts=$(echo " $git_am_opt " | \
> -			    sed -e 's/ -q / /g' -e 's/^ \(.*\) $/\1/')
> -	if test -n "$interactive_rebase"
> +incompatible_opts=$(echo " $git_am_opt " | \
> +		    sed -e 's/ -q / /g' -e 's/^ \(.*\) $/\1/')

Why are we no longer guarding this behind the condition that the user
specified *any* option intended for the `am` backend?

> +if test -n "$incompatible_opts"
> +then
> +	if test -n "$actually_interactive" || test "$do_merge"
>  	then
> -		if test -n "$incompatible_opts"
> -		then
> -			die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine interactive options (--interactive, --exec, --rebase-merges, --preserve-merges, --keep-empty, --root + --onto) with am options ($incompatible_opts)")"
> -		fi
> -	fi
> -	if test -n "$do_merge"; then
> -		if test -n "$incompatible_opts"
> -		then
> -			die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine merge options (--merge, --strategy, --strategy-option) with am options ($incompatible_opts)")"
> -		fi
> +		die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine am options ($incompatible_opts) with either interactive or merge options")"
>  	fi
>  fi
>  

The rest of this hunk makes sense.

> @@ -672,7 +664,7 @@ require_clean_work_tree "rebase" "$(gettext "Please commit or stash them.")"
>  # but this should be done only when upstream and onto are the same
>  # and if this is not an interactive rebase.
>  mb=$(git merge-base "$onto" "$orig_head")
> -if test -z "$interactive_rebase" && test "$upstream" = "$onto" &&
> +if test -z "$actually_interactive" && test "$upstream" = "$onto" &&
>  	test "$mb" = "$onto" && test -z "$restrict_revision" &&
>  	# linear history?
>  	! (git rev-list --parents "$onto".."$orig_head" | sane_grep " .* ") > /dev/null
> @@ -716,6 +708,19 @@ then
>  	GIT_PAGER='' git diff --stat --summary "$mb" "$onto"
>  fi
>  
> +if test -z "$actually_interactive" && test "$mb" = "$orig_head"
> +then
> +	# If the $onto is a proper descendant of the tip of the branch, then
> +	# we just fast-forwarded.

This comment is misleading if it comes before, rather than after, the
actual `checkout -q` command.

> +	say "$(eval_gettext "Fast-forwarded \$branch_name to \$onto_name.")"
> +	GIT_REFLOG_ACTION="$GIT_REFLOG_ACTION: checkout $onto_name" \
> +		git checkout -q "$onto^0" || die "could not detach HEAD"
> +	git update-ref ORIG_HEAD $orig_head
> +	move_to_original_branch
> +	finish_rebase
> +	exit 0
> +fi
> +
>  test -n "$interactive_rebase" && run_specific_rebase
>  
>  # Detach HEAD and reset the tree
> @@ -725,16 +730,6 @@ GIT_REFLOG_ACTION="$GIT_REFLOG_ACTION: checkout $onto_name" \
>  	git checkout -q "$onto^0" || die "could not detach HEAD"
>  git update-ref ORIG_HEAD $orig_head

It is a pity that this hunk header hides the lines that you copied into
the following conditional before moving it before the "if interactive, run
it" line:

>  
> -# If the $onto is a proper descendant of the tip of the branch, then
> -# we just fast-forwarded.
> -if test "$mb" = "$orig_head"
> -then
> -	say "$(eval_gettext "Fast-forwarded \$branch_name to \$onto_name.")"
> -	move_to_original_branch
> -	finish_rebase
> -	exit 0
> -fi
> -
>  if test -n "$rebase_root"
>  then
>  	revisions="$onto..$orig_head"

What you did is correct, if duplicating code, and definitely the easiest
way to do it. Just move the comment, and we're good here.

> diff --git a/git-rebase--merge.sh b/git-rebase--merge.sh
> deleted file mode 100644
> [... snip ...]

Nice. Really nice!

> diff --git a/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh b/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
> index 0392e36d23..04d6c71899 100755
> --- a/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
> +++ b/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
> @@ -17,14 +17,9 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
>  	git tag start
>  '
>  
> -cat >expect <<\EOF
> -Already applied: 0001 A
> -Already applied: 0002 B
> -Committed: 0003 Z
> -EOF
> -

As I had mentioned in the previous round: I think we can retain these
messages for the `--merge` mode. And I think we should: users of --merge
have most likely become to expect them.

The most elegant way would probably be by adding code to the sequencer
that outputs these lines if in "merge" mode (and add a flag to say that we
*are* in "merge" mode).

To that end, the `make_script()` function would not generate `# pick` but
`drop` lines, I think, so that the sequencer can see those and print the
`Already applied: <message>` lines. And a successful `TODO_PICK` would
write out `Committed: <message>`.

>  test_expect_success 'rebase -m' '
>  	git rebase -m master >report &&
> +	>expect &&
>  	sed -n -e "/^Already applied: /p" \
>  		-e "/^Committed: /p" report >actual &&
>  	test_cmp expect actual
> diff --git a/t/t3420-rebase-autostash.sh b/t/t3420-rebase-autostash.sh
> index f355c6825a..49077200c5 100755
> --- a/t/t3420-rebase-autostash.sh
> +++ b/t/t3420-rebase-autostash.sh
> @@ -53,41 +53,6 @@ create_expected_success_interactive () {
>  	EOF
>  }
>  
> -create_expected_success_merge () {
> -	cat >expected <<-EOF
> -	$(grep "^Created autostash: [0-9a-f][0-9a-f]*\$" actual)
> -	HEAD is now at $(git rev-parse --short feature-branch) third commit
> -	First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
> -	Merging unrelated-onto-branch with HEAD~1
> -	Merging:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short unrelated-onto-branch) unrelated commit
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch^) second commit
> -	found 1 common ancestor:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch~2) initial commit
> -	[detached HEAD $(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch~1)] second commit
> -	 Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
> -	 Date: Thu Apr 7 15:14:13 2005 -0700
> -	 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> -	 create mode 100644 file1
> -	 create mode 100644 file2
> -	Committed: 0001 second commit
> -	Merging unrelated-onto-branch with HEAD~0
> -	Merging:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch~1) second commit
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch) third commit
> -	found 1 common ancestor:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch~1) second commit
> -	[detached HEAD $(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch)] third commit
> -	 Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
> -	 Date: Thu Apr 7 15:15:13 2005 -0700
> -	 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> -	 create mode 100644 file3
> -	Committed: 0002 third commit
> -	All done.
> -	Applied autostash.
> -	EOF
> -}
> -
>  create_expected_failure_am () {
>  	cat >expected <<-EOF
>  	$(grep "^Created autostash: [0-9a-f][0-9a-f]*\$" actual)
> @@ -112,43 +77,6 @@ create_expected_failure_interactive () {
>  	EOF
>  }
>  
> -create_expected_failure_merge () {
> -	cat >expected <<-EOF
> -	$(grep "^Created autostash: [0-9a-f][0-9a-f]*\$" actual)
> -	HEAD is now at $(git rev-parse --short feature-branch) third commit
> -	First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
> -	Merging unrelated-onto-branch with HEAD~1
> -	Merging:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short unrelated-onto-branch) unrelated commit
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch^) second commit
> -	found 1 common ancestor:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch~2) initial commit
> -	[detached HEAD $(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch~1)] second commit
> -	 Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
> -	 Date: Thu Apr 7 15:14:13 2005 -0700
> -	 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> -	 create mode 100644 file1
> -	 create mode 100644 file2
> -	Committed: 0001 second commit
> -	Merging unrelated-onto-branch with HEAD~0
> -	Merging:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch~1) second commit
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch) third commit
> -	found 1 common ancestor:
> -	$(git rev-parse --short feature-branch~1) second commit
> -	[detached HEAD $(git rev-parse --short rebased-feature-branch)] third commit
> -	 Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
> -	 Date: Thu Apr 7 15:15:13 2005 -0700
> -	 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> -	 create mode 100644 file3
> -	Committed: 0002 third commit
> -	All done.
> -	Applying autostash resulted in conflicts.
> -	Your changes are safe in the stash.
> -	You can run "git stash pop" or "git stash drop" at any time.
> -	EOF
> -}
> -
>  testrebase () {
>  	type=$1
>  	dotest=$2
> @@ -177,6 +105,9 @@ testrebase () {
>  	test_expect_success "rebase$type --autostash: check output" '
>  		test_when_finished git branch -D rebased-feature-branch &&
>  		suffix=${type#\ --} && suffix=${suffix:-am} &&
> +		if test ${suffix} = "merge"; then
> +			suffix=interactive
> +		fi &&
>  		create_expected_success_$suffix &&
>  		test_i18ncmp expected actual
>  	'
> @@ -274,6 +205,9 @@ testrebase () {
>  	test_expect_success "rebase$type: check output with conflicting stash" '
>  		test_when_finished git branch -D rebased-feature-branch &&
>  		suffix=${type#\ --} && suffix=${suffix:-am} &&
> +		if test ${suffix} = "merge"; then
> +			suffix=interactive
> +		fi &&
>  		create_expected_failure_$suffix &&
>  		test_i18ncmp expected actual
>  	'

As I stated earlier, I am uncomfortable with this solution. We change
behavior rather noticeably, and the regression test tells us the same. We
need to either try to deprecate `git rebase --merge`, or we need to at
least attempt to recreate the old behavior with the sequencer.

> diff --git a/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh b/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh
> index 99b2aac921..911ef49f70 100755
> --- a/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh
> +++ b/t/t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  	"
>  }
>  test_run_rebase success ''
> -test_run_rebase failure -m
> +test_run_rebase success -m
>  test_run_rebase success -i
>  test_run_rebase success -p
>  
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  	"
>  }
>  test_run_rebase success ''
> -test_run_rebase failure -m
> +test_run_rebase success -m
>  test_run_rebase success -i
>  test_run_rebase success -p
>  
> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  	"
>  }
>  test_run_rebase success ''
> -test_run_rebase failure -m
> +test_run_rebase success -m
>  test_run_rebase success -i
>  test_run_rebase success -p
>  
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  	"
>  }
>  test_run_rebase success ''
> -test_run_rebase failure -m
> +test_run_rebase success -m
>  test_run_rebase success -i
>  test_run_rebase success -p
>  
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  	"
>  }
>  test_run_rebase success ''
> -test_run_rebase failure -m
> +test_run_rebase success -m
>  test_run_rebase success -i
>  test_run_rebase failure -p
>  

Nice.

> diff --git a/t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh b/t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh
> index 846f85c27e..cd505c0711 100755
> --- a/t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh
> +++ b/t/t3425-rebase-topology-merges.sh
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  }
>  #TODO: make order consistent across all flavors of rebase
>  test_run_rebase success 'e n o' ''
> -test_run_rebase success 'e n o' -m
> +test_run_rebase success 'n o e' -m
>  test_run_rebase success 'n o e' -i
>  
>  test_run_rebase () {
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  }
>  #TODO: make order consistent across all flavors of rebase
>  test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' ''
> -test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' -m
> +test_run_rebase success 'd n o e' -m
>  test_run_rebase success 'd n o e' -i
>  
>  test_run_rebase () {
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ test_run_rebase () {
>  }
>  #TODO: make order consistent across all flavors of rebase
>  test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' ''
> -test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' -m
> +test_run_rebase success 'd n o e' -m
>  test_run_rebase success 'd n o e' -i
>  
>  test_expect_success "rebase -p is no-op in non-linear history" "

This is a bit unfortunate. I wonder if we could do something like this, to
retain the current behavior:

-- snip --
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 9e1ab3a2a7..5018957e49 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -4394,7 +4394,8 @@ int sequencer_make_script(FILE *out, int argc, const char **argv,
 	revs.reverse = 1;
 	revs.right_only = 1;
 	revs.sort_order = REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER;
-	revs.topo_order = 1;
+	if (!(flags & TODO_LIST_NO_TOPO_ORDER))
+		revs.topo_order = 1;
 
 	revs.pretty_given = 1;
 	git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
-- snap -

(and then pass TODO_LIST_NO_TOPO_ORDER if in "merge" mode)?

> diff --git a/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh b/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
> index 9b2a274c71..145c61251d 100755
> --- a/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
> +++ b/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
> @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git rebase -m --skip' '
>  	git rebase --continue &&
>  	echo rebase >expected.args &&
>  	cat >expected.data <<-EOF &&
> +	$(git rev-parse C) $(git rev-parse HEAD^)
>  	$(git rev-parse D) $(git rev-parse HEAD)
>  	EOF
>  	verify_hook_input

This suggests to me that we call `commit` too many times. I think we
really need to address this without changing the test. This is a change in
behavior.

> diff --git a/t/t9903-bash-prompt.sh b/t/t9903-bash-prompt.sh
> index 81a5179e28..5cadedb2a9 100755
> --- a/t/t9903-bash-prompt.sh
> +++ b/t/t9903-bash-prompt.sh
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ test_expect_success 'prompt - interactive rebase' '
>  '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'prompt - rebase merge' '
> -	printf " (b2|REBASE-m 1/3)" >expected &&
> +	printf " (b2|REBASE-i 1/3)" >expected &&

As I said, this should be easily addressed by having a tell-tale in
$state_dir/. Come to think of it, we must have had one, right? Let's see
how the bash-prompt does it.

*clicketyclick*

Ah, it is the *absence* of the `interactive` file... Which makes me wonder
whether we should not simply retain that behavior for `git rebase
--merge`?

>  	git checkout b2 &&
>  	test_when_finished "git checkout master" &&
>  	test_must_fail git rebase --merge b1 b2 &&
> -- 
> 2.19.1.858.g526e8fe740.dirty
> 
> 

Thank you for this pleasant read. I think there is still quite a bit of
work to do, but you already did most of it.

Out of curiosity, do you have a public repository with these patches in a
branch? (I might have an hour to play with it tonight...)

Thanks!
Dscho

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-12 16:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-08  6:01 [PATCH v2 0/2] Reimplement rebase --merge via interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2018-11-08  6:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the " Elijah Newren
2018-11-12 15:11   ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-08  6:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: Implement --merge via git-rebase--interactive Elijah Newren
2018-11-12 16:21   ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2018-11-12 18:21     ` Phillip Wood
2018-11-13  9:18       ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-14 23:06       ` Elijah Newren
2018-11-13 16:06     ` Elijah Newren
2018-11-14 23:03     ` Elijah Newren
2018-11-15 12:27       ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-08  6:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Reimplement rebase --merge via interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] " Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 1/7] rebase: fix incompatible options error message Elijah Newren
2018-11-28  8:28     ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-11-28 15:58       ` Elijah Newren
2018-11-28 16:12     ` Duy Nguyen
2018-11-28 16:31       ` Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 2/7] t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 3/7] am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 4/7] git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 5/7] git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 6/7] rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it Elijah Newren
2018-11-22  4:48   ` [PATCH v3 7/7] rebase: Implement --merge via the interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11   ` [PATCH v4 0/8] Reimplement rebase --merge via " Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 1/8] rebase: make builtin and legacy script error messages the same Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 2/8] rebase: fix incompatible options error message Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 3/8] t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 4/8] am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite Elijah Newren
2019-01-21 16:07       ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 17:59         ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-21 18:11           ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 5/8] git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2019-01-21 16:10       ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 17:50         ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-21 18:19           ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 18:22             ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-22 20:39           ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-20 11:00             ` Phillip Wood
2019-02-21 17:44               ` Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 6/8] git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 7/8] rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 16:11     ` [PATCH v4 8/8] rebase: Implement --merge via the interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2019-01-07 17:15     ` [PATCH v4 0/8] Reimplement rebase --merge via " Elijah Newren
2019-01-07 19:46       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-07 20:11         ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-07 20:39           ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-11 18:36             ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-18 13:36             ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-18 14:22               ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-18 17:55                 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-18 18:07                   ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-18 21:03                   ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-18 21:21                     ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-21 21:02                       ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 16:03     ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 21:01       ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-21 21:04         ` Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39     ` [PATCH v5 " Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 1/8] rebase: make builtin and legacy script error messages the same Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 2/8] rebase: fix incompatible options error message Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 3/8] t5407: add a test demonstrating how interactive handles --skip differently Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 4/8] am, rebase--merge: do not overlook --skip'ed commits with post-rewrite Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 5/8] git-rebase, sequencer: extend --quiet option for the interactive machinery Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 6/8] git-legacy-rebase: simplify unnecessary triply-nested if Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 7/8] rebase: define linearization ordering and enforce it Elijah Newren
2019-01-29  1:39       ` [PATCH v5 8/8] rebase: implement --merge via the interactive machinery Elijah Newren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811121614190.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
    --to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=newren@gmail.com \
    --cc=predatoramigo@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: Implement --merge via git-rebase--interactive' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox