git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Problems with ra/rebase-i-more-options - should we revert it?

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Jan 12, 2020, 21:12 UTC
Message-ID
<xmqqeew4l6qf.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To
<089637d7-b4b6-f6ba-cce1-29e22ce47521@gmail.com>
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/01/2020 16:12, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> I'm concerned that there are some bugs in this series and think
>> it may be best to revert it before releasing 2.25.0.
Let's do that.
Show 13 quoted lines
>> Jonathan
>> Nieder posted a bug report on Friday [1] which I think is caused
>> by this series. While trying to reproduce Jonathan's bug I came
>> up with the test below which fails, but not in the same way.
>
> Doh I forgot to add --committer-date-is-author-date to the rebase
> command line in that test. It passes with that added - how
> embarrassing. However it does appear that it prefixes the date in
> GIT_COMMITTER_DATE with @@ rather than @.
>
> start of the epoch and fails to parse it. The fix for the @@ is
> quite simple, the date we read from the author script already has
> an @ so we don't need to add another.
Yes, that sounds like a minimum and straightforward fix.

In any case, the tip of 'master' (hence the one that would become the final) is simpler to remedy by just reverting the merge, but there are a handful of in-flight topics that may have been queued by forking 'master' after the problematic merge was made (iow, anything after the fifth batch for this cycle), which I'd have to be a bit careful when I merge them down, lest they attempt to pull in the bad topic again. But that will be something we need to worry about after the release, not before the final.

Thanks.
[Footnote]
*1* The list of still-in-flight topics that may be contaminated with
    the merge of ra/rebase-i-more-options into 'master' are:
    am/test-pathspec-f-f-error-cases
    am/update-pathspec-f-f-tests
    bc/hash-independent-tests-part-7
    dl/merge-autostash
    ds/graph-horizontal-edges
    en/rebase-backend
    es/bugreport
    es/pathspec-f-f-grep
    hi/gpg-mintrustlevel
    hw/advice-add-nothing
    jn/promote-proto2-to-default
    jn/test-lint-one-shot-export-to-shell-function
    kw/fsmonitor-watchman-racefix
    sg/completion-worktree
    yz/p4-py3

I probably may requeue them by rebasing on top of 2.25 once the release is done.

Previous: Johannes SchindelinNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 6 of 14 in “Problems with ra/rebase-i-more-options - should we revert it?”
  1. Phillip WoodJan 12, 2020
  2. Phillip WoodJan 12, 2020
  3. Johannes SchindelinJan 12, 2020
  4. Phillip WoodJan 17, 2020
  5. Johannes SchindelinJan 20, 2020
  6. Junio C HamanoJan 12, 2020
  7. Junio C HamanoJan 13, 2020
  8. Junio C HamanoJan 13, 2020
  9. "rebase -ri" (was Re: Problems with ra/rebase-i-more-options - should we revert it?)Junio C Hamano, Jan 13, 2020
  10. Johannes SchindelinJan 15, 2020
  11. Junio C HamanoJan 15, 2020
  12. Rebasing evil merges with --rebase-mergesIgor Djordjevic, Jan 15, 2020
  13. Sergey OrganovJan 16, 2020
  14. Junio C HamanoJan 15, 2020

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.