Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation as
an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> I'll have to take a (lengthy) dinner break now, but this is what I have so
> far: a regression test that verifies the breakage (see the
>
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation
> as an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> > > In a successful run with older git I get a reflog like this:
> > >
> > >4833d74
Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation as
an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> > In a successful run with older git I get a reflog like this:
> >
> >4833d74 HEAD@{0}: rebase finished: returning to
> >
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation
> as an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> > if you could pry more information (or better information) out of that bug
> > reporter,
Johannes Schindelin writes ("Re: [PATCH] rebase: mark the C reimplementation as
an experimental opt-in feature (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.20.0-rc1)"):
> if you could pry more information (or better information) out of that bug
> reporter, that would be nice. Apparently my email address is
Hi Jonathan,
if you could pry more information (or better information) out of that bug
reporter, that would be nice. Apparently my email address is blacklisted
by his mail provider, so he is unlikely to have received my previous mail
(nor will he receive this one, I am sure).
Thanks,
Dscho
On
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Since I raised this 'should we hold off?' I thought I'd chime in and say
> that I'm fine with going along with what you suggest and having the
> builtin as the default in the final. IOW not merge
> jc/postpone-rebase-in-c down.
OK.
On Wed, Nov 28 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> At https://bugs.debian.org/914695 is a report of a test regression in
>> an outside project that is very likely to have been triggered by the
>> new faster rebase code.
>
> From
Hi Jonathan,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> At https://bugs.debian.org/914695 is a report of a test regression in
> an outside project that is very likely to have been triggered by the
> new faster rebase code.
>From looking through that log.gz (without having a clue where the
Hi,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>>> Given that we're still finding regressions bugs in the rebase-in-C
>>> version should we be considering reverting 5541bd5b8f ("rebase: default
>>> to using the builtin rebase", 2018-08-08)?
>>>
>>> I love the feature, but fear
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>>> * "git rebase" and "git rebase -i" have been reimplemented in C.
>>
>> Here's another regression in the C version (and rc1),...
>> I wasn't trying to stress test rebase. I was just wanting to rebase a
>> history I was about to
11 matches
Mail list logo
