Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: correctly remember --root flag across --continue

From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Date: Jan 26, 2009, 21:28 UTC
Message-ID: <200901262228.13104.trast@student.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <7veiyp4w2m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
> > +	GIT_EDITOR=: test_must_fail git rebase -i --root --onto master &&
> 
> Maybe I am misrecalling things but didn't we have reports from people on
> some platforms that single-shot exporting of the environment like this one
> does not work for them?

Then that deserves a fix, though I should point out that the original patches (now on master) have the same code in them.

[So many quirks and so little time!]

Show 23 quoted lines

> > +sed 's/#/ /g' > expect-conflict-p <<'EOF'
> > +*   Merge branch 'third' into other
> > +|\##
> > +| * 6
> > +* |   Merge branch 'side' into other
> > +|\ \##
> > +| * | 5
> > +* | | 4
> > +|/ /##
> > +* | 3
> > +|/##
> > +* conflict
> > +* 2
> > +* 1
> > +EOF
> 
> I do not like this very much.  Future improvements of the graph drawing
> algorithm (one obvious "flaw" you are exposing by the above is that it has
> trailing whitespaces that can be trimmed, and somebody else may be
> inclined to fix) would break the expectation this test vector has.
> 
> Do you have to compare the topology this way, or are there other more
> reliable ways?

It would certainly be possible to test the SHA1 of the resulting branch tip, but t/README says I shouldn't. Or we could spell it out as a series of 'parent of X is Y' and 'message of Y is foo' tests, which seems rather messy.

The above approach at least has the advantage that a test failure due to format change can be diagnosed very quickly just from the diff that is shown with -v.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch