Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] add tests for rebasing with patch-equivalence present

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: May 30, 2013, 12:54 UTC
Message-ID: <51A74BFC.4020900@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANiSa6joMXeh7HoGAFXskdXaPZjN+0uHrtN7V85FyQHTGCwZMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am 30.05.2013 07:30, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:

Show 34 quoted lines

> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> Am 5/29/2013 8:39, schrieb Martin von Zweigbergk:
>>> +#       f
>>> +#      /
>>> +# a---b---c---g---h
>>> +#      \
>>> +#       d---G---i
>> ...
>>> +test_run_rebase () {
>>> +     result=$1
>>> +     shift
>>> +     test_expect_$result "rebase $* --onto drops patches in onto" "
>>> +             reset_rebase &&
>>> +             git rebase $* --onto h f i &&
>>> +             test_cmp_rev h HEAD~2 &&
>>> +             test_linear_range 'd i' h..
>>
>> Isn't this expectation wrong? The upstream of the rebased branch is f, and
>> it does not contain G. Hence, G should be replayed. Since h is the
>> reversal of g, the state at h is the same as at c, and applying G should
>> succeed (it is the same change as g). Therefore, I think the correct
>> expectation is:
>>
>>                 test_linear_range 'd G i' h..
> 
> Good question! It is really not obvious what the right answer is. Some
> arguments in favor of dropping 'G':
> 
> 1. Let's say origin/master points to 'b' when you start the 'd G i'
> branch. You then send the 'G' patch to Junio who applies it as 'g'
> (cherry-picking direction is reversed compared to figure, but same
> effect). You then "git pull --rebase" when master on origin points to
> 'h'. Because of the cleverness in 'git pull --rebase', it issues 'git
> rebase --onto h b i'.

The reason for this git pull cleverness is to be prepared for rewritten history:

   b'--c'--g'--h'
  /
 a---b
      \
       d---G---i

to avoid that b is rebased.

Show 8 quoted lines

> In this case it's clearly useful to have the
> patch dropped.
> 
> 2. In the test a little before the above one, we instead do 'git
> rebase --onto f h i' and make sure that the 'G' is _not_ lost. In that
> case it doesn't matter what's in $branch..$upstream. Do we agree that
> $branch..$upstream should never matter (instead, $upstream is only
> used to find merge base with $branch)?

No, we do not agree. $branch..$upstream should be the set of patches that should be omitted. $branch..$onto should not matter. $onto is only used to specify the destination of the rebased commits.

> Do we also agree that 'git
> rebase a b' should be identical to 'git rebase --onto a a b'?

Absolutely!

> Because
> 'git rebase h i' should clearly drop 'G', then so should 'git rebase
> --onto h h i'.

Yes!

> Then, if we agreed that $branch..$upstream doesn't
> matter, 'git rebase --onto h f i' should behave the same, no?

Correct in the mathematically logical sense. ;) But we do not agree that $branch..$upstream doesn't matter.

> The set of commits to rebase that I was thinking of using was
> "$upstream..$branch, unless equivalent with patch in $branch..$onto".
> But I'm not very confident about my conclusions above :-)

At least the man page says that ..$upstream counts and $onto tells just the new base.

The way how git pull calls rebase should be revisited, I think.

-- Hannes