Re: [PATCH 0/2] rebase.useBuiltin doc & test mode

From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
	gitgitgadget@gmail.com, Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@gmail.com>,
	Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rebase.useBuiltin doc & test mode
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:07:20 +0100 (STD)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1811141506100.39@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181114090144.31412-1-avarab@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2659 bytes --]

Hi Ævar,

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> 
> >> But maybe I'm being overly paranoid. What do those more familiar with
> >> this think?
> >
> > I am not too worried,
> > * as rebase is a main porcelain, that is even hard to use in a script.
> >   so any failures are not deep down in some automation,
> >   but when found exposed quickly (and hopefully reported).
> > * 5541bd5b8f was merged to next a month ago; internally we
> >    distribute the next branch to Googlers (on a weekly basis)
> >    and we have not had any bug reports regarding rebase.
> >    (Maybe our environment is too strict for the wide range
> >     of bugs reported)
> 
> I do the same at Booking.com (although at a more ad-hoc schedule) and
> got the report whose fix is now sitting in "pu" noted upthread.
> 
> I fear that these sorts of corporate environments, both Google's and
> Booking's, end up testing a relatively narrow featureset. Most people
> have similar enough workflows, e.g. just using "git pull --rebase",
> I'd be surprised if we have more than 2-3 internal users who ever use
> the --onto option for example.
> 
> > * Johannes reported that the rebase is used in GfW
> >    https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808241320540.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/
> >    https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1800
> >    and from my cursory reading it is part of
> >    2.19.windows, which has a large user base.
> >
> >> (and would re-enable rebase.useBuiltin=true in
> >> master right after 2.20 is out the door).
> >
> > That would be fine with me as well, but I'd rather
> > document rebase.useBuiltin instead of flip-flopping
> > the switch around the release.
> >
> > Have there been any fixes that are only in
> > the C version (has the shell version already bitrotted)?
> 
> That's a good question, one which I don't think we knew the answer to
> before the following patches.

I pay close attention to `git rebase` bug reports and patches (obviously),
and there have not been any changes going into the built-in rebase/rebase
-i that necessitated changes also in the scripted version.

Ciao,
Dscho

> As it turns out no, we still run the tests without failures with
> GIT_TEST_REBASE_USE_BUILTIN=false.
> 
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (2):
>   rebase doc: document rebase.useBuiltin
>   tests: add a special setup where rebase.useBuiltin is off
> 
>  Documentation/config/rebase.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  builtin/rebase.c                |  5 ++++-
>  t/README                        |  3 +++
>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.19.1.1182.g4ecb1133ce
> 
> 