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 bre
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
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: retur
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
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
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 We
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 lo
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > ...
> > In short, even a thorough study of the code (keeping in mind the few
> > tidbits of information provided by you) leaves me really wondering which
> > code you run, because it sure does not look like
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 tes
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 that
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> ...
> In short, even a thorough study of the code (keeping in mind the few
> tidbits of information provided by you) leaves me really wondering which
> code you run, because it sure does not look like current `master` to me.
>
> And if it is not `master`, then I have
Elijah Newren writes:
> If we don't set rebase.useBuiltin to false, then there is also a minor
> regression in the error message printed by the built-in rebase we may
> want to try to address. I have a patch for it at
> <20181122044841.20993-2-new...@gmail.com>, but I don't know if that
> patch
Hi Ævar,
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > * "git rebase" and "git rebase -i" have been reimplemented in C.
> >
> > Here's another regression in the C version (and rc
Hi Ævar,
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > * "git rebase" and "git rebase -i" have been reimplemented in C.
>
> Here's another regression in the C version (and rc1), note: the
> sha1collisiondetection is just a stand in for "
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:37 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Unless I hear otherwise in the next 24 hours, I am planning to
> merge the following topics to 'master' before cutting -rc2. Please
> stop me on any of these topics.
>
> - jc/postpone-rebase-in-c
>
>This may be the most controversial
Unless I hear otherwise in the next 24 hours, I am planning to
merge the following topics to 'master' before cutting -rc2. Please
stop me on any of these topics.
- jc/postpone-rebase-in-c
This may be the most controversial. It demotes the C
reimplementation of "git rebase" to an experime
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 force
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 force-push after cleaning it up, hardl
On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * "git rebase" and "git rebase -i" have been reimplemented in C.
Here's another regression in the C version (and rc1), note: the
sha1collisiondetection is just a stand in for "some repo":
(
rm -rf /tmp/repo &&
git init /tmp/repo
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:58 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> There's a regression related to this that I wanted to send a headsup
> for, but don't have time to fix today. Now range-diff in format-patch
> includes --stat output. See e.g. my
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20181122132823.9883-1-
On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * The "--no-patch" option, which can be used to get a high-level
>overview without the actual line-by-line patch difference shown, of
>the "range-diff" command was earlier broken, which has been
>corrected.
There's a regression related t
22 matches
Mail list logo
