Rebasing a commit that contains a diff in the commit message results
in a failure with output such as
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Applying: My cool patch.
fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless
(app/controllers/settings_controller.rb).
Repository lacks necessary blobs to fall back on 3-way merge.
Cannot fall back to three-way merge.
Patch failed at 0001 My cool patch.
The reason is that 'git rebase' without -p/-i/-m internally calls 'git
format-patch' and pipes the output to 'git am --rebasing', which has
no way of knowing what is a real patch and what is a commit message
that contains a patch.
Make 'git am' while in --rebasing mode get the patch body from the
commit object instead of extracting it from the mailbox.
Patch by Junio, test case and commit log message by Martin.
Reported-by: anikey <arty.anikey@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Many scripts compare actual and expected output using
"diff -u". This is nicer than "cmp" because the output shows
how the two differ. However, not all versions of diff
understand -u, leading to unnecessary test failure.
This adds a test_cmp function to the test scripts and
switches all "diff -u" invocations to use it. The function
uses the contents of "$GIT_TEST_CMP" to compare its
arguments; the default is "diff -u".
On systems with a less-capable diff, you can do:
GIT_TEST_CMP=cmp make test
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This makes rebase/am keep the original commit log message
better, even when it does not conform to "single line paragraph
to say what it does, then explain and defend why it is a good
change in later paragraphs" convention.
This change is a two-edged sword. While the earlier behaviour
would make such commit log messages more friendly to readers who
expect to get the birds-eye view with oneline summary formats,
users who primarily use git as a way to interact with foreign
SCM systems would not care much about the convenience of oneline
git log tools, but care more about preserving their own
convention. This changes their commits less useful to readers
who read them with git tools while keeping them more consistent
with the foreign SCM systems they interact with.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
