Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #02; Sun, 12)

From: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2008, 06:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20081013013752.8fc16695.stephen@exigencecorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20081012212543.GG4856@spearce.org>

> * sh/maint-rebase3 (Sun Oct 5 23:26:52 2008 -0500) 1 commit
>  - rebase--interactive: fix parent rewriting for dropped commits
> 
> A prior version of sh/rebase-i-p.  This should be dropped.

maint-rebase3 is actually a separate issue than sh/rebase-i-p.

maint-rebase3 deals with commits dropped because they are recognized as cherry picks, while rebase-i-p deals with commits that can be ignored from the todo because their parents are not being changed.

I'm surprised they both applied cleanly to pu--I was expecting a conflict, as I noted in one of my posts. I just fetched pu and they seem to have each broke the each other's tests as well.

To fix this, I have some local changes to pu that gets both tests passing again. Should I submit my integration changes as a diff on top of pu? Or should I try and integrate the two patches into one series?

Technically these two fixes are different things, and I assert you could apply one or the other, but if you apply both, they require integration, so I'm not sure what to do.

(...nuts, t3404#22 is failing, so my maint3-rebase/rebase-i-p integration patch is not quite ready yet.)

(I also have a test comment typo and test_expect_failure change to make to rebase-i-p from Junio's feedback and would like to know the preferred way to submit those--e.g. a patch on top of your pu, a patch on top of the existing series, or a new series all together. Given it is not next, I'm guessing a new series all together.)

Thanks, Stephen