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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 0C127C07E95 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0952610F7 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234423AbhGTRmx (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:42:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64866 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234394AbhGTRl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:41:58 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806E2E7D35; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=nMy4xf6wu9ui3I3r1vbcqPxgHD5dPYNIY7bPBX SQ3VU=; b=Gw1jPILWVPR38QS38V7QZy7t0qUz7dzaxTS4fGO+WnRveDUUvjH2z0 cQw7V+85B1vsfjlxkSxtACLsyd/dmbvQyCCiQWlGIzMl9g0M9h/2dN9cF9kbvjYx JDuqyp+uUaVkVBUKF9b0RiRvGRl6U+nIrbQfawnxOGK7PLW9gY0xs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782FEE7D34; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04987E7D33; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:22:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Alex Henrie , Son Luong Ngoc , Matthias Baumgarten , Eric Sunshine , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] t7601: add relative precedence tests for merge and rebase flags/options References: <6cb771297f5f7d5bb0c6734bcb3fe6d3b8bb4c88.1626536508.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:22:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:10:58 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 748FEA62-E987-11EB-B25D-8B3BC6D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: >> OK. These all ensure that when the history does not fast-forward, >> the command will fail when --ff-only tells us to allow only >> fast-forward. I am not sure "takes precedence" is a meaningful >> label, though. It is more like "ff-only means ff-only and fails >> when the upstream history is not a descendant, no matter how the >> possible integration is set to be performed". > > So, I think you're saying you view fast-forwards as a subset of valid > rebases (and fast-forwards are also a subset of valid rmerges), and > thus you view --ff-only --rebase as an instruction to only proceed if > both command line flags can be satisfied. Ah, I didn't think of it myself, but now you put it in these words, I do agree that the view makes sense. When we have nothing of our own, a degenerated form of a rebase is a fast-forward, even more so than a fast-forward being a degenerated form of a merge. > That makes sense, but I don't know how to put that into a test > description that isn't ridiculously long. Me neither. Let's not waste too much brain-cycles over this. Thanks.