| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This backend has been deprecated in favor of `git rebase
--rebase-merges`.
In preparation for dropping it, let's remove all the regression tests
that would need it.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The `--preserve-merges` mode of the `rebase` command is slated to be
deprecated soon, as the more powerful `--rebase-merges` mode is
available now, and the latter was designed with the express intent to
address the shortcomings of `--preserve-merges`' design (e.g. the
inability to reorder commits in an interactive rebase).
As such, we will eventually even remove the `--preserve-merges` support,
and along with it, its tests.
In preparation for this, and also to allow the Windows phase of our
automated tests to save some well-needed time when running the test
suite, this commit introduces a new prerequisite REBASE_P, which can be
forced to being unmet by setting the environment variable
`GIT_TEST_SKIP_REBASE_P` to any non-empty string.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
By Johannes Sixt
* js/rebase-i-p-test-fix:
Fix t3411.3 to actually rebase something
|
|
The test intends to rebase a branchy history onto a later commit, but it
forgot to reset HEAD back to an earlier commit before it set up the side
branches. In the end, every "rebased" commit was only a fast-forward and
the 'rebase -p' did not change the commit graph at all. Insert the missing
checkout that moves to an earlier commit.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Consider this graph:
D---E (topic, HEAD)
/ /
A---B---C (master)
\
F (topic2)
and the following three commands:
1. git rebase -i -p A
2. git rebase -i -p --onto F A
3. git rebase -i -p B
Currently, (1) and (2) will pick B, D, C, and E onto A and F,
respectively. However, (3) will only pick D and E onto B, but not C,
which is inconsistent with (1) and (2). As a result, we cannot modify C
during the interactive-rebase.
The current behavior also creates a bug if we do:
4. git rebase -i -p C
In (4), E is never picked. And since interactive-rebase resets "HEAD"
to "onto" before picking any commits, D and E are lost after the
interactive-rebase.
This patch fixes the inconsistency and bug by ensuring that all children
of upstream are always picked. This essentially reverts the commit:
d80d6bc146232d81f1bb4bc58e5d89263fd228d4
When compiling the todo list, commits reachable from "upstream" should
never be skipped under any conditions. Otherwise, we lose the ability
to modify them like (3), and create a bug like (4).
Two of the tests contain a scenario like (3). Since the new behavior
added more commits for picking, these tests need to be updated to
account for the additional pick lines. A new test has also been added
for (4).
Signed-off-by: Andrew Wong <andrew.kw.w@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The $TEST_DIRECTORY variable allows tests to find the
top-level test directory regardless of the current working
directory.
In the past, this has been used to accomodate tests which
change directories, but it is also the first step to being
able to move trash directories outside of the
$TEST_DIRECTORY hierarchy.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Use test_commit() and test_merge(). This way, it is harder to forget to
tag, or to call test_tick before committing.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Rather than copying and pasting, which is prone to lead to fixes
missing in one version, move the fake-editor generator to t/t3404/.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
This seems like the best guess we can make until git sequencer marks are
available. That being said, within the context of re-ordering a commit before
its parent in todo, I think applying it on top of the current commit seems like
a reasonable assumption of what the user intended.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The first case was based off a script from Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>.
The second case includes a merge-of-a-merge to ensure both are included in todo.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
