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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C144AC25B0D for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 05:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233258AbiHPFHI (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2022 01:07:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43716 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233144AbiHPFGq (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2022 01:06:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C327263F for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC87B19EB7B; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:07:10 -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=q64oY9UrU4z8zrRfUKRwAuz1hqpCDR6tDkF3gK cc3Q0=; b=qs2W5gtE9Mmm+u5+hE6c1rsnZ+M9aG+M3SnIqfUf46+XzfjCZ83FvZ dPn9MW2cGSNx8z7vr5Ys5WeV1hts+hwTW2althUc6QgdMttRujj2SD+mXx7M4gpY dfMKmtGJ0CLIBrZhgN9aSEiGtDbhPY6bxICZFCLYvUJD+bKV3BcUk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50FC19EB79; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:07:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54DAA19EB78; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:07:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Philippe Blain , Denton Liu , Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] rebase --keep-base: imply --no-fork-point References: <68bcd10949ec7767d1e0ee8e2f0730ca36bad1c5.1660576283.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:07:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <68bcd10949ec7767d1e0ee8e2f0730ca36bad1c5.1660576283.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget's message of "Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:11:23 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3871DC12-1CDE-11ED-8A32-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Phillip Wood > > Given the name of the option it is confusing if --keep-base actually > changes the base of the branch without --fork-point being explicitly > given on the command line. Does it merely "imply"? As keep-base requests exactly the same base commit reused from the current history, doesn't fork-point a competing and conflicting request, i.e. "please compute an appropriate fork-point by looking at merge base with possibly rewound tips of upstream branch"? > + /* > + * --keep-base ignores config.forkPoint as it is confusing if > + * the branch base changes when using this option. > + */ The comment singles out config.forkPoint (Isn't that "rebase.forkPoint"???) as "confusing". Do we ignore rebase.forkPoint when --keep-base is given? Do we honor --fork-point from the command line when --keep-base is given? > + if (options.fork_point < 0) > + options.fork_point = 0;