From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms19.migadu.com with LMTPS id eG9pGG3dJ2d+vQAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:30:37 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id eG9pGG3dJ2d+vQAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:30:37 +0100 X-Envelope-To: piem@inbox.kyleam.com Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; none Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44A8A41EB9 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:30:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [10.196.197.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4XhR751dZsz9shn; Sun, 3 Nov 2024 21:30:25 +0100 (CET) From: Leo To: Kyle Meyer , Leo Cc: piem@inbox.kyleam.com Subject: Re: piem-am with multiple attached patches squashes the commits In-Reply-To: <87r07s45x9.fsf@kyleam.com> References: <87r07s45x9.fsf@kyleam.com> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:30:22 +0100 Message-ID: <874j4o9i1t.fsf@> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Migadu-Country: DE X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.00 X-Spam-Score: -4.00 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 44A8A41EB9 X-TUID: dMYQcnTYPd8o Kyle Meyer writes: > Thanks for the report, and sorry for the very delayed reply. > Thank you for replying! When I dug up the email that triggered this I I found some work that I hadn't finished. =F0=9F=98=85 > > Odd. I'm not able to trigger that behavior on my end, so any additional > info for reproducing would be helpful (though, if you're not hitting > into this regularly, I realize these details may be lost to time at this > point). I found the email that prompted this report. I tried running `piem-am` on it again, and I could observe the same behaviour as described earlier. I also tried to reproduce it with a minimum viable example in a new repo, but then the expected behaviour occurred. I can't really find any meaningful difference between the two so I'm giving up for now. Maybe someone else will encounter this again in the future. I haven't run into this since (and had honestly forgotten that the problem existed). Cheers, Leo