Hi Stolee
On 21/10/2019 14:56, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Derrick Stolee
The read-tree builtin has a --verbose option that signals to show
progress and other data while updating the index. Update this to
be on by default when stderr is a terminal window.
This will help tools
Hi Denton
On 16/10/2019 18:26, Denton Liu wrote:
In rebase, one can pass the `--autostash` option to cause the worktree
to be automatically stashed before continuing with the rebase. This
option is missing in merge, however.
It might be helpful to say why this option is useful. I can see one
Hi Denton
On 16/10/2019 18:26, Denton Liu wrote:
Since autostash.c was recently introduced, we should avoid
USE_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS since we are trying to move away from
this in the rest of the codebase. Rewrite the autostash code to not need
it and remove its definition.
Signed-off-
Hi Denton
It's great to see this being libified, I've had it in mind to do this so
we can avoid forking 'git checkout' in sequencer.c
On 16/10/2019 18:26, Denton Liu wrote:
Begin the process of lib-ifying the autostash code. In a future commit,
This patch is best viewed with `--color-moved`
Hi Denton
On 16/10/2019 18:26, Denton Liu wrote:
Begin the process of lib-ifying the autostash code. In a future commit,
this will be used to implement `--autostash` in other builtins.
This patch is best viewed with `--color-moved` and
`--color-moved-ws=allow-indentation-change`.
Signed-off-by
From: Phillip Wood
This function was declared in commit.h but was implemented in
builtin/commit.c so was not part of libgit. Move it to libgit so we can
use it in the sequencer. This simplifies the implementation of
run_prepare_commit_msg_hook() and will be used in the next commit.
Signed-off
From: Phillip Wood
Commit 65850686cf ("rebase -i: rewrite write_basic_state() in C",
2018-08-28) accidentially added new function declarations after
the #endif at the end of the include guard.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood
---
sequencer.h | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2
From: Phillip Wood
As $EDITOR is exported setting it in one test affects all subsequent
tests. Avoid this by always setting it in a subshell. This commit leaves
20 calls to set_fake_editor that are not in subshells as they can
safely be removed in the next commit once all the other editor
Patch 6 (was 3) I've tided up the test and removed the wrapper function for
running the post-commit hook as suggested.
Phillip Wood (6):
t3404: remove unnecessary subshell
t3404: set $EDITOR in subshell
t3404: remove uneeded calls to set_fake_editor
sequencer.h fix placement of #
From: Phillip Wood
Neither of the commands executed in the subshell change any shell
variables or the current directory so there is no need for them to be
executed in a subshell.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood
---
t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4
From: Phillip Wood
Prior to commit 356ee4659b ("sequencer: try to commit without forking
'git commit'", 2017-11-24) the sequencer would always run the
post-commit hook after each pick or revert as it forked `git commit` to
create the commit. The conversion to committing
From: Phillip Wood
Some tests were calling set_fake_editor to ensure they had a sane no-op
editor set. Now that all the editor setting is done in subshells these
tests can rely on EDITOR=: and so do not need to call set_fake_editor.
Also add a test at the end to detect any future additions
Hi Dscho & Junio
On 11/10/2019 05:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
>>> builtin/commit.c | 22 --
>>> commit.h | 3 ---
>>> sequencer.c | 45 ++---
>>> sequencer.h | 2 ++
>>> 4 files changed
Hi Dscho
On 10/10/2019 22:31, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Phillip,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Phillip Wood
Prior to commit 356ee4659b ("sequencer: try to commit without forking
'git commit'", 2017-11-24) the sequencer would always
From: Phillip Wood
Prior to commit 356ee4659b ("sequencer: try to commit without forking
'git commit'", 2017-11-24) the sequencer would always run the
post-commit hook after each pick or revert as it forked `git commit` to
create the commit. The conversion to committing
From: Phillip Wood
Commit 65850686cf ("rebase -i: rewrite write_basic_state() in C",
2018-08-28) accidentially added new function declarations after
the #endif at the end of the include guard.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood
---
sequencer.h | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2
From: Phillip Wood
This simplifies the implementation of run_prepare_commit_msg_hook() and
will be used in the next commit.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood
---
builtin/commit.c | 22 --
commit.h | 3 ---
sequencer.c | 45
When I converted the sequencer to avoid forking git commit i forgot about
the post-commit hook. These patches are based on
pw/rebase-i-show-HEAD-to-reword, otherwise the new test fails as that branch
changes the number of commits we make.
Phillip Wood (3):
sequencer.h fix placement of #endif
who wanted to give their Acks but forgot to do so, to raise
their hands on this thread.
I forgot to add
Acked-by: Phillip Wood
to my original reply in this thread, could you add it please
Thanks
Phillip
Thanks for starting the concluding move on this topic.
For reference, here is the CoC
On 08/10/2019 11:11, Phillip Wood wrote:
> Hi Toon & Zeger-Jan
>
> On 08/10/2019 08:49, Toon Claes wrote:
>> Add support to provide the Co-author when committing. For each
>> co-author provided with --coauthor=, a line is added at the
>> bottom of the commit me
Hi Toon & Zeger-Jan
On 08/10/2019 08:49, Toon Claes wrote:
Add support to provide the Co-author when committing. For each
co-author provided with --coauthor=, a line is added at the
bottom of the commit message, like this:
Co-authored-by:
It's a common practice use when pairing up with o
Hi Elijah
On 05/10/2019 01:40, Elijah Newren wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:49 AM Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Junio
On 03/10/2019 06:04, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while c
Hi Junio
On 03/10/2019 06:04, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
the integration branches, but I am still
Hi Rohit
The handling of ident_split is looking better now but I've got a
question below about returning vs going to a cleanup section when
there's an error.
On 07/09/2019 12:50, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date
by changing it to the auth
Hi Rohit
On 07/09/2019 12:50, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the
interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are
implemented in one but not in the other. One such flag is
--ignore-whitespace which indicates merge mechanism to tre
Hi Dscho
On 02/10/2019 09:16, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Alban
On 25/09/2019 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
>>> [...]
builtin/rebase.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebas
Hi Alban
On 25/09/2019 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
This can be seen as a continuation of ag/reduce-rewriting-todo.
Currently, complete_action() releases its todo list before calling
sequencer_continue(), which reloads the todo list from the disk. This
series removes this useless round trip.
Pat
Hi Alban
On 25/09/2019 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
get_replay_opts() did not fill `squash_onto' if possible, meaning that
I'm not sure what you mean by 'if possible' here, I think the sentance
makes sense without that.
this field should be read from the disk by the sequencer through
read_pop
Hi Alban
Thanks for removing some more unnecessary work reloading the the todo list.
On 25/09/2019 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
Currently, complete_action() calls sequencer_continue() to do the
rebase. Even though the former already has the todo list, the latter
loads it from the disk and parses
Hi Rohit
This is an improvement but there are a couple of outstanding issues from
the previous round with regard to handing --ignore-date when
GIT_COMMITTER_DATE is set. I'll try and look at the rest of the series soon.
On 07/09/2019 12:50, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this fla
Hi Eric
On 24/09/2019 02:03, Eric Wong wrote:
Patches 1-11 are largely unchanged from the original series with the
exception of 2, which is new and posted at:
https://public-inbox.org/git/20190908074953.kux7zz4y7iolqko4@whir/
12-17 take further steps to get us away from hashmap_entry b
Hi Gábor
On 24/09/2019 10:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:44:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
[...]
After some poking around at various CoC options, this one seemed like
the best fit to me. But I'm open to suggestions or more discussion. It
seems to me that the important piece i
Hi Peff
On 24/09/2019 07:44, Jeff King wrote:
We've never had a formally written Code of Conduct document. Though it
has been discussed off and on over the years, for the most part the
behavior on the mailing list has been good enough that nobody felt the
need to push one forward.
However, even
Hi Taylor and ZJ
On 22/09/2019 04:11, Taylor Blau wrote:
Hi ZJ,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 03:31:34PM +0200, Zeger-Jan van de Weg wrote:
When adding or updating configuration values using git-config, the
values could all be observed by different processes as these are passed
as arguments. In some
Hi
On 09/09/2019 15:13, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 08/09/2019 00:44, Warren He wrote:
Everyone in this thread, thanks for your support and encouragement.
[...]
It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges
On 23/09/2019 09:37, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:01:26PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 22.09.19 um 21:53 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
+/*
+ * One day. See the 'name
Hi Gábor
On 22/09/2019 19:01, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to
save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer
date of the oldest given commit minus a one day worth of slop. Since
our 'timestamp_t' is an unsigned type,
On 09/09/2019 19:02, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Rohit Ashiwal writes:
Following the suggestion of Phillip I've rebased my patch on master (745f681289)
and cherry-picking b0a3186140.
Sorry, but that's horrible. The latter does not even cleanly apply
on the former.
Yes I had assumed that the che
Hi Warren
On 08/09/2019 00:44, Warren He wrote:
Everyone in this thread, thanks for your support and encouragement.
[...]
It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges`.
`imply_interactive` doesn't fully switch on `--interactive`, i.e., causing the
editor to open. It only s
Hi Warren
On 03/09/2019 00:41, Warren He wrote:
Sometimes people have to rebase multiple related branches. One way to do that
quickly, when there are branches pointing to ancestors of a later branch (which
happens a lot if you try hard to pad your PR count on GitHub--I mean if you try
to make sm
Hi Matt
This is definitely worth fixing, I've got a couple of comments below
On 02/09/2019 15:01, Matt R via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Matt R
The `label` todo command in interactive rebases creates temporary refs
in the `refs/rewritten/` namespace. These refs are stored as loose refs,
i.e. as
On 30/08/2019 14:23, Dmitry Nikulin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 13:16, Phillip Wood wrote:
I'm not sure why the last argument is being split in
your example. It is not split in the example below
I have replicated the splitting issue on my small demo repo [1]:
$ env GIT_EXTERNAL
Hi Dmitry
On 29/08/2019 15:36, Dmitry Nikulin wrote:
Thank you for the reply.
[...]
However, for the original repository where I first faced this problem
(https://github.com/yandexdataschool/Practical_RL), Git passes a very
weird set of args to the external diff:
$ env GIT_EXTERNAL_DIFF=./print
Hi Stolee
On 29/08/2019 18:01, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
From: Derrick Stolee
The 'git switch' command was created to separate half of the
behavior of 'git checkout'. It specifically has the mode to
do nothing with the index and working directory if the user
only specifies to crea
Hi Mike
On 29/08/2019 00:25, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
This just happened to me while cherry-pick'ing:
$ git cherry-pick HEAD@{1}
error: could not apply 614fe5e629b84... try
hint: after resolving the conflicts, mark the corrected paths
hint: with 'git add ' or 'git rm '
hint: and commit the resul
On 27/08/2019 15:49, Derrick Stolee wrote:
On 8/25/2019 10:43 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
This macro is popular within the Linux kernel for supporting
intrusive data structures such as linked lists, red-black trees,
and chained hash tables while allowing the compiler to do
type checking.
I intend to u
Hi Eric
On 27/08/2019 10:49, Eric Wong wrote:
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Eric,
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Eric Wong wrote:
By renaming the "hash" field to "_hash", it's easy to spot
improper initialization of hashmap_entry structs which
can leave "hashmap_entry.next" uninitialized.
Would you
Hi Brian
On 26/08/2019 00:33, brian m. carlson wrote:
This series makes rebase --am honor the .gitattributes file for
subsequent patches when a patch changes it.
Note that there are two places we load attributes in ll-merge.c, but
this code only handles the one that git am uses. The two cannot
On 20/08/2019 19:32, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 20/08/2019 19:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
Do you know why -m and -i aren't affected?
I had to look, but I believe the answer is because they use the
sequencer, and the sequencer calls git merge-recursive as a separate
pr
On 19/08/2019 17:09, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:18 AM Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget
wrote:
Adapt try_to_commit() to create a new root commit rather than special
casing this in run_git_commit(). The significantly reduces the amount of
s/The/This/
Thanks Eric - well
Hi Rohit
On 20/08/2019 04:45, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the
interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are
implemented in one but not in the other. One such flag is
--ignore-whitespace which indicates merge mechanism to tre
On 20/08/2019 18:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
Hi Rohit
On 20/08/2019 04:45, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
I've tries to incorporated all the suggestions.
It is helpful if you can list the changes to remind us all what we
said. (as a patch author I find composing that is he
On 20/08/2019 19:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
Do you know why -m and -i aren't affected?
I had to look, but I believe the answer is because they use the
sequencer, and the sequencer calls git merge-recursive as a separate
process, and so the writing of the tree is
On 20/08/2019 18:42, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Rohit Ashiwal writes:
+/* Construct a free()able author string with current time as the author date */
+static char *ignore_author_date(const char *author)
+{
+ int len = strlen(author);
Mental note: ignore_author_date() would not allow author
Hi Rohit
On 20/08/2019 04:45, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
I've tries to incorporated all the suggestions.
It is helpful if you can list the changes to remind us all what we said.
(as a patch author I find composing that is helpful to remind me if
there's anything I've forgotten to address)
Also t
Hi Rohit
On 20/08/2019 04:45, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the author date
by changing it to the committer (current) date. Let's add the same
for interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
Documentation/git-rebase.txt| 6 +--
Hi Rohit
One thing that struck we was that we should support this with rebase -r
which means setting GIT_COMMITTER_DATE when we fork 'git merge'. I've
got a couple of other comments below
On 20/08/2019 04:45, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer d
Hi Ben
I need to have a longer look at this (I don't understand why we're
calling reset --hard after we've stashed the changes) but I notice that
the test lines you're changing predate the switch to the builtin rebase
so those changes are not related to the branch switching problem.
Best Wis
Hi Ben
On 18/08/2019 10:53, Ben Wijen wrote:
When using `git rebase --autostash ` and
the workarea is dirty, the active branch is incorrectly reset
to the rebase branch.
This test will check for such behavior.
Signed-off-by: Ben Wijen
---
t/t3420-rebase-autostash.sh | 9 +
1 file
On 20/08/2019 04:05, brian m. carlson wrote:
On 2019-08-19 at 09:55:27, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 19/08/2019 10:41, Phillip Wood wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/convert.c b/convert.c
index 94ff837649..030e9b81b9 100644
--- a/convert.c
+++ b/convert.c
@@ -1293,10 +1293,11 @@ struct conv_attrs
Hi Brian
On 20/08/2019 03:45, brian m. carlson wrote:
On 2019-08-19 at 09:41:42, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Brian
On 18/08/2019 19:44, brian m. carlson wrote:
When applying multiple patches with git am, or when rebasing using the
am backend, it's possible that one of our patches has upda
On 19/08/2019 10:41, Phillip Wood wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/convert.c b/convert.c
index 94ff837649..030e9b81b9 100644
--- a/convert.c
+++ b/convert.c
@@ -1293,10 +1293,11 @@ struct conv_attrs {
const char *working_tree_encoding; /* Supported encoding or
default encoding if NULL
Hi Brian
On 18/08/2019 19:44, brian m. carlson wrote:
When applying multiple patches with git am, or when rebasing using the
am backend, it's possible that one of our patches has updated a
gitattributes file. Currently, we cache this information, so if a
file in a subsequent patch has attributes
Hi Ben
On 18/08/2019 10:53, Ben Wijen wrote:
I found an issue with git rebase --autostash with an dirty
worktree/index.
It seems the currently active branch is moved, which is not correct.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the currently active branch
is moved". 'git rebase --auto
This series contains a couple of patches to make the C version of rebase
--interactive behave more like the scripted version. The third patch is not
strictly related to the first two but is included here to avoid merge
conflicts.
Phillip Wood (3):
rebase -i: always update HEAD before rewording
From: Phillip Wood
If the user runs git log while rewording a commit it is confusing if
sometimes we're amending the commit that's being reworded and at other
times we're creating a new commit depending on whether we could
fast-forward or not[1]. Fix this inconsistency by always
From: Phillip Wood
Adapt try_to_commit() to create a new root commit rather than special
casing this in run_git_commit(). The significantly reduces the amount of
special case code for creating the root commit and reduces the number of
commit code paths we have to worry about.
Signed-off-by
From: Phillip Wood
While a rebase is stopped for the user to edit a commit message it can
be convenient for them to also edit the todo list. The scripted version
of rebase supported this but the C version does not. We already check to
see if the todo list has been updated by an exec command so
On 14/08/2019 20:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
That's an important distinction, particularly if GIT_COMMITTER_DATE is
set in the environment - are we aiming to have the author and
committer dates match or are we just resetting the author date to now?
Rohit - do you know
On 14/08/2019 22:20, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:28:52PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
Save the updated commit message, and after the editor opens up the
third commit's log message, check again where HEAD is pointing to now:
~/tmp/reword (master +|REBASE-i 2/3)$ hea
On 13/08/2019 22:45, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Rohit Ashiwal writes:
--ignore-date::
- This flag is passed to 'git am' to change the author date
- of the rebased commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
+ Instead of using the given author date, re-set it to the value
+ same as co
Hi Junio & Rohit
On 13/08/2019 18:21, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
+static void push_dates(struct child_process *child)
+{
+ time_t now = time(NULL);
+ struct strbuf date = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+ strbuf_addf(&date, "@%"PRIuM
On 13/08/2019 18:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood writes:
[...]
+
+ strbuf_addf(&date, "@%s",ident.date_begin);
I think we should use %s.* and ident.date_end to be sure we getting
what we want. Your version is OK if the author is formatted correctly
but I&
On 12/08/2019 20:42, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date
by changing it to the author date. Let's add the same for
interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
Documentation/git-rebase.txt| 8 +++-
builtin/rebase.c
Hi Rohit
On 12/08/2019 20:42, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
The purpose of amend_author was to free() the malloc()'d string
obtained from get_author() while amending a commit. But we can
also use the variable to free() the author at our convenience.
Rename it to convey this meaning.
Thanks for rewordin
Hi Rohit
This is looking better - there are a couple of memory management issues
and minor nit-picks but apart from that it looks good.
On 12/08/2019 20:42, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the author date
by changing it to the committer (current) date. Let'
On 13/08/2019 11:38, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Rohit
[...]
@@ -964,6 +976,25 @@ static int run_git_commit(struct repository *r,
{
struct child_process cmd = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
+ if (opts->committer_date_is_author_date) {
+ size_t len;
+ int res = -1;
+ str
Hi Rohit
Thanks for the re-roll
On 12/08/2019 20:42, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the
interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are
implemented in one but not in the other. One such flag is
--ignore-whitespace which indicate
Hi Rohit
This is looking good, I think it is almost there now
On 12/08/2019 20:42, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date
by changing it to the author date. Let's add the same for
interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
Documen
On 12/08/2019 18:50, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
When running interactive rebase to reword a commit message, I would
expect that the commit whose message I'm rewording is checked out.
This is not quite the case when rewording multiple subsequent commit
messages.
Let's start with four commits, and start
Hi Dave
On 11/08/2019 10:54, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Dave
Thanks for the bug report. I've tried to reproduce it on the latest
master, version 2.22.0 and 2.20.1 and am unable to do so.
Doh, I was doing 'git checkout -p HEAD', when I checkout from the index
I can reproduce th
Hi Dave
Thanks for the bug report. I've tried to reproduce it on the latest
master, version 2.22.0 and 2.20.1 and am unable to do so. I thought it
might be related to a bug I recently fixed[1] but it does not appear to
be. I've appended the files I used below just in case I made a mistake
tra
On 08/08/2019 12:42, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the author date
by changing it to the committer (current) date. Let's add the same
for interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
>
Hi Rohit
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the
interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are
implemented in one but not in the other. One such flag is
--ignore-whitespace which indicates merge mechanism to tre
Hi Rohit
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
The previous commit introduced --ignore-date flag to interactive
rebase, but the name is actually very vague in context of rebase -i
since there are two dates we can work with. Add an alias to convey
the precise purpose.
That's an excellent id
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the author date
by changing it to the committer (current) date. Let's add the same
for interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
Documentation/git-rebase.txt| 6 ++--
builti
Hi Rohit
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
The purpose of amend_author was to free() the malloc()'d string
obtained from get_author(). But the name does not actually convey
this purpose. Rename it to something meaningful.
The name was intended to covey that it was only used when amendi
Hi Rohit
On 06/08/2019 18:36, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date
by changing it to the author date. Let's add the same for
interactive machinery.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal
---
Documentation/git-rebase.txt| 8 +++-
builtin/r
On 06/08/2019 04:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano writes:
Jonathan Nieder writes:
Some non-judgemental descriptive output like
$ git commit --amend --no-edit
No changes.
$
would address this case, without bothering people who are doing it
intentionally. So
On 01/08/2019 14:25, Alexandr Miloslavskiy wrote:
On 31.07.2019 19:19, Jeff King wrote:
I don't have any real objection to adding stdin support for more
commands. Bu tin the specific case you're discussing, it seems like
using "git update-index" might already solve your problem. It's the
intende
Hi Andreas
On 30/07/2019 18:24, Andreas Wiesinger wrote:
Hello,
git revert for merges will mark merged files as deleted and commit
them as if they would have been deleted, but that is for sure never
what anybody would expect and has deleted many files unintentionally
and unrecognized in our rep
Hi Alban
On 25/07/2019 21:26, Alban Gruin wrote:
Hi Phillip,
Le 24/07/2019 à 15:29, Phillip Wood a écrit :
Hi Alban
Thanks for working on this, it's great to see you back on the list and I
think it would be a useful addition to rebase. Unfortunately I'm not
sure about this impl
Hi Rohit
On 23/07/2019 20:57, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
Hi Phillip
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:56:50 +0100 Phillip Wood
wrote:
[...]
@@ -467,6 +470,9 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char **argv,
const char *prefix)
OPT_BOOL(0, "autosquash", &o
g point of the rebase. I think
dscho's garden-shears script does something similar. Under the proposed
scheme if I subsequently edit the todo list it will not catch any
deleted commits as the original list is empty.
Best Wishes
Phillip
The idea to extend this feature was suggested to me mo
Hi Rohit,
It's good to see another patch reducing the differences between the
rebase back ends.
On 18/07/2019 19:55, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
> There are two backends available for rebasing, viz, the am and the
> interactive. Naturally, there shall be some features that are
> implemented in one but n
Hi Rohit
It's good to see this patch reducing the differences between the rebase
backends.
On 18/07/2019 20:03, Rohit Ashiwal wrote:
rebase am already has this flag to "lie" about the committer date
by changing it to the author date. Let's add the same for
interactive machinery.
Signed-off-b
On 08/07/2019 23:02, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood writes:
>
>>> * pw/rebase-progress-test-cleanup (2019-07-01) 1 commit
>>> - t3420: remove progress lines before comparing output
>>> (this branch uses sg/rebase-progress.)
>>>
>>> Test
On 03/07/2019 23:28, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
> '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
> '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
> the integration branches, but I am still hol
On 02/07/2019 18:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood writes:
>
>>> As long as sed implementation used here does not do anything funny
>>> to CR, I think the approach to strip everything before the last CR
>>> on the line is sensible. As I am not familiar
From: Phillip Wood
Some of the tests check the output of rebase is what we expect. These
were added after a regression that added unwanted stash output when
using --autostash. They are useful as they prevent unintended changes to
the output of the various rebase commands. However they also
1 - 100 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
