Re: [PATCH 0/6] fixup ra/rebase-i-more-options
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 7, 2020, 18:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <0ad67315-21e6-48a6-0903-626c9a0e4b04@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPp-BF5Z8zJLZ3e4G8bDUJjheP4D4-aLoLcpqWuJC+OqLTpDg@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/04/2020 16:17, Elijah Newren wrote:
Show 44 quoted lines
> Hi Phillip,
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:11 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>
>> The tests for ra/rebase-i-more-options were not as comprehensive as
>> they could have been and some of the tests that we did have didn't do
>> a good job of testing what they purported to. This series cleans up
>> the tests and fixes a couple of bugs (thanks to Jonathan Nieder for
>> reporting one of them). The bug fix reworks the code to try and make
>> it clearer.
>>
>> I've opted to add some cleanup commits on top of Rohit's work rather
>> than reworking his patches. These are based on top of 4d924528d8
>> ("Revert "Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'"", 2020-01-12) there
>> are some conflicts when merging into pu. I had a quick look at the
>> conflicts and they appeared to be relatively straight forward to
>> resolve. If that impression is wrong let me know and I can rebase onto
>> master or try doing the merge myself and pushing it to github.
>>
>> Phillip Wood (6):
>> Revert "Revert "Merge branch 'ra/rebase-i-more-options'""
>> t3433: remove loops from tests
>> t3433: only compare commit dates
>> rebase -i: fix --committer-date-is-author-date
>> Revert "sequencer: allow callers of read_author_script() to ignore
>> fields"
>> t3433: improve coverage
>>
>> Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 27 +++-
>> builtin/rebase.c | 49 ++++--
>> sequencer.c | 109 ++++++++++++-
>> sequencer.h | 2 +
>> t/t3422-rebase-incompatible-options.sh | 2 -
>> t/t3433-rebase-options-compatibility.sh | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 7 files changed, 368 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100755 t/t3433-rebase-options-compatibility.sh
>>
>> --
>> 2.26.0
>
> Thanks for working on this! I took a look over the series and noted a
> few minor issues and questions, but it mostly looked good to me.Thanks for looking at them and for your suggestions. I think I've got reasonable test coverage now - lets see if Stolee's coverage script agrees
Best Wishes
Phillip
> Elijah >