Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Fix checkout-dash to work with rebase
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:48
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Fix checkout-dash to work with rebase · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Fix checkout-dash to work with rebase · Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH v2 0/6] Fix checkout-dash to work with rebase · Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh index a58406d..c175ef1 100755 --- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh +++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh@@ -934,6 +934,21 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase --edit-todo can be used to modify todo' ' test L = $(git cat-file commit HEAD | sed -ne \$p) ' +test_expect_success 'rebase -i produces readable reflog' '
I don't know if this test is a good idea at all. We never directly check the messages written by a command to the reflog, and I suspect that there is a good reason for this: the format of .git/logs is not guaranteed to be stable, and the messages written by various commands are not guaranteed to be stable either; the only machine-parsing of reflogs we do is very minimal: interpret_nth_prior_checkout() and grab_1st_switch(). A quick $ git grep .git/logs -- t shows that I'm mostly right about this. Why make an exception in the case of rebase -i? In the worst case, the patch atleast needs to be discussed as an independent patch: it's certainly not obvious enough to sneak into this series. I'll submit a re-roll without this hunk.