From: Alex Torok <alext9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:25:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rebase: add test for rebase --fork-point with short upstream
Message-ID: <CANmPhj20-K1f4sL6m3YmZEy+9WdV9YknXfUdLsGCaehv+axb+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv9quxtle.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

That was the intention. Your idea for ordering makes more sense.

I'll reorder the commits and submit new patches.


On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Torok <alext9@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This proves the bug of "rebase --fork-point upstream branch" not using
> > the fork point of upstream and branch if upstream is not the full
> > refname of the upstream branch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Torok <alext9@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Is this new test expected to fail after applying only 1/3 and then
> starts working after applying all 3 patches?
>
> If so, it probably makes a lot mroe sense to reorder the series to
> have 2/3 as a single preparatory patch, with 1/3 + 3/3 combined into
> a single patch "rebase: find --fork-point with full ref" to fix the
> code and protect the fix with the test at the same time.
>
> > diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> > index 78851b9a2a..6ecdae918e 100755
> > --- a/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3431-rebase-fork-point.sh
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --no-fork-point --onto D
> >  test_rebase 'G F C B A' --no-fork-point --keep-base
> >  test_rebase 'G F E D B A' --fork-point refs/heads/master
> >  test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D refs/heads/master
> > +test_rebase 'G F D B A' --fork-point --onto D master
> >  test_rebase 'G F B A' --fork-point --keep-base refs/heads/master
> >  test_rebase 'G F C E D B A' refs/heads/master
> >  test_rebase 'G F C D B A' --onto D refs/heads/master