* b4 prep -e oddness
@ 2023-01-11 20:56 Vishal Verma
2023-01-11 22:00 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vishal Verma @ 2023-01-11 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev; +Cc: tools
Hi Konstantin,
I'm seeing some odd behavior with b4 prep -e.
A common workflow for me ends up looking like:
- current branch is master
- make some changes, commit on master
- realize this is turning into a patch series
- git switch -c new_branch (this pulls in my new commits to new_branch)
- reset master to where it was before my new commits (say v6.2-rc3)
- b4 prep -e master (I expect this to enroll new_branch, and its new
commits, with master (v6.2-rc3) as the fork point).
At this point, I get:
NOTE: No new commits since fork-point "master"
Created the default cover letter, you can edit with --edit-cover.
It seems to grab the state of master prior to me resetting to v6.2-rc3.
Here's a terminal log of this:
$ git log --oneline -1
b7bfaa761d76 (HEAD -> master, tag: v6.2-rc3) Linux 6.2-rc3
$ git commit --allow-empty -m "new_commit"
[master 9652673e06ea] new_commit
$ git switch -c new_branch
Switched to a new branch 'new_branch'
$ git log --oneline -1
9652673e06ea (HEAD -> new_branch, master) new_commit
$ git switch master
Switched to branch 'master'
Your branch and 'linus/master' have diverged,
and have 1 and 21 different commits each, respectively.
(use "git pull" to merge the remote branch into yours)
$ git reset --hard v6.2-rc3
HEAD is now at b7bfaa761d76 Linux 6.2-rc3
$ git switch new_branch
Switched to branch 'new_branch'
$ b4 -d prep -e master
Running git --no-pager status --porcelain=v1 --untracked-files=no
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp branch\.new_branch\..*
Running git --no-pager rev-parse --show-toplevel
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp b4\..*
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp gpg\..*
Looking for the cover letter commit with magic marker "--- b4-submit-tracking ---"
Running git --no-pager log --no-abbrev-commit --grep --- b4-submit-tracking --- -F --pretty=oneline --max-count=1 --since=1.year
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp user\..*
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp branch\.new_branch\..*
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager show-ref --heads master
Finding the fork-point with master
Running git --no-pager merge-base --fork-point master
Fork-point between new_branch and master is 9652673e06ea84926e3be7c5cef0285c60fe31ff
Running git --no-pager rev-list 9652673e06ea84926e3be7c5cef0285c60fe31ff..
NOTE: No new commits since fork-point "master"
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp branch\.new_branch\..*
Looking for the cover letter commit with magic marker "--- b4-submit-tracking ---"
Running git --no-pager log --no-abbrev-commit --grep --- b4-submit-tracking --- -F --pretty=oneline --max-count=1 --since=1.year
tracking data: {}
Running git --no-pager config --replace-all branch.new_branch.b4-prep-cover-strategy commit
Created the default cover letter, you can edit with --edit-cover.
Running git --no-pager symbolic-ref -q HEAD
Running git --no-pager config -z --get-regexp branch\.new_branch\..*
Got strategy=commit from branch-config
Running git --no-pager commit --allow-empty -F -
$ git log --oneline -3
c8be0da650a2 (HEAD -> new_branch) EDITME: cover title for new_branch
9652673e06ea new_commit
b7bfaa761d76 (tag: v6.2-rc3, master) Linux 6.2-rc3
The problematic step seems to be:
$ git --no-pager merge-base --fork-point master new_branch
9652673e06ea84926e3be7c5cef0285c60fe31ff
It looks like --fork-point uses the reflog, which has an entry for, I
guess, a stale new_commit on master. (Maybe a gc will clean this up?)
Instead, if I did this (drop --fork-point and just do a vanilla merge-
base):
$ git --no-pager merge-base master new_branch
b7bfaa761d760e72a969d116517eaa12e404c262
This is what I'd expect (-rc3).
I'm not sure if switching to this breaks other expectations though?
Thanks,
Vishal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: b4 prep -e oddness
2023-01-11 20:56 b4 prep -e oddness Vishal Verma
@ 2023-01-11 22:00 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2023-01-11 22:22 ` Vishal Verma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev @ 2023-01-11 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vishal Verma; +Cc: tools
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:56:24PM -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> The problematic step seems to be:
>
> $ git --no-pager merge-base --fork-point master new_branch
> 9652673e06ea84926e3be7c5cef0285c60fe31ff
I'm not sure it's problematic as much as it's just not something you're
expecting in this particular case.
I did think that finding the actual fork-point would be useful, but I'm happy
to drop that if the expectation is that we're just looking for the best
merge-base, as opposed to the actual forking point.
> It looks like --fork-point uses the reflog, which has an entry for, I
> guess, a stale new_commit on master. (Maybe a gc will clean this up?)
>
> Instead, if I did this (drop --fork-point and just do a vanilla merge-
> base):
>
> $ git --no-pager merge-base master new_branch
> b7bfaa761d760e72a969d116517eaa12e404c262
>
> This is what I'd expect (-rc3).
>
> I'm not sure if switching to this breaks other expectations though?
No, this is literally up to what makes most sense. Do we always want to use
the actual merge-base and ignore any reflog forking history when enrolling
branches?
-K
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: b4 prep -e oddness
2023-01-11 22:00 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
@ 2023-01-11 22:22 ` Vishal Verma
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vishal Verma @ 2023-01-11 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev; +Cc: tools
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]
On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 17:00 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:56:24PM -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > The problematic step seems to be:
> >
> > $ git --no-pager merge-base --fork-point master new_branch
> > 9652673e06ea84926e3be7c5cef0285c60fe31ff
>
> I'm not sure it's problematic as much as it's just not something you're
> expecting in this particular case.
Agreed.
>
> I did think that finding the actual fork-point would be useful, but I'm happy
> to drop that if the expectation is that we're just looking for the best
> merge-base, as opposed to the actual forking point.
>
> > It looks like --fork-point uses the reflog, which has an entry for, I
> > guess, a stale new_commit on master. (Maybe a gc will clean this up?)
> >
> > Instead, if I did this (drop --fork-point and just do a vanilla merge-
> > base):
> >
> > $ git --no-pager merge-base master new_branch
> > b7bfaa761d760e72a969d116517eaa12e404c262
> >
> > This is what I'd expect (-rc3).
> >
> > I'm not sure if switching to this breaks other expectations though?
>
> No, this is literally up to what makes most sense. Do we always want to use
> the actual merge-base and ignore any reflog forking history when enrolling
> branches?
Reading this[1] about fork-point, I'm not personally seeing use cases
in a typical b4 prep/send workflow where it would be useful to use
--fork-point
I'll let others chime in if this isn't the case!
[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-merge-base#_discussion_on_fork_point_mode
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-11 22:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-11 20:56 b4 prep -e oddness Vishal Verma
2023-01-11 22:00 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2023-01-11 22:22 ` Vishal Verma
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).