Am 6/4/2013 19:18, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Martin von Zweigbergk <martinv...@gmail.com> writes: > >> --- >> +#TODO: make all flavors of rebase use --topo-order >> +test_run_rebase success 'e n o' '' >> +test_run_rebase success 'e n o' -m >> +test_run_rebase success 'n o e' -i > > I do not quite follow this TODO. > > While I think it would be nice to update "rebase" so that all > variants consider replaying the commits in the same order, in this > history you have: > > +# a---b-----------c > +# \ \ > +# d-------e \ > +# \ \ \ > +# n---o---w---v > +# \ > +# z > > as long as o comes after n and e is shown before n or after o, which > all three expected results satisify, it is in --topo-order, isn't it?
The comment is really just about the inconsistency, not about a request to have a guaranteed order among the parents of a merge commit. Having said that, wouldn't it be useful (generally, not just in this context) to have a guarantee in which order --topo-order lists parents of a merge? >> +test_expect_success "rebase -p re-creates merge from side branch" " >> + reset_rebase && >> + git rebase -p z w && >> + test_cmp_rev z HEAD^ && >> + test_cmp_rev w^2 HEAD^2 >> +" > > Hmm, turning the left one to the right one? > > +# d-------e d-------e > +# \ \ \ \ > +# n---o---w ===> n---o \ > +# \ \ \ > +# z z---W > > If w were a merge of o into e (i.e. w^1 were e not o), what should > happen? Would we get the same topology? 'git rebase -p z w' is a nonsense request in this situation. (I.e., there is no requirement on the result.) At best, we could detect it and bail out or warn. -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
