From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] rebase: improve resumption from incorrect initial todo list
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:34:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZElEis+PLDYR+Jvr@ugly> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a188876-c456-7269-28de-9ff406204030@dunelm.org.uk>
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 03:28:01PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
>On 23/03/2023 16:22, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> When the user butchers the todo file during rebase -i setup, the
>> --continue which would follow --edit-todo would have skipped the last
>> steps of the setup. Notably, this would bypass the fast-forward over
>> untouched picks (though the actual picking loop would still fast-forward
>> the commits, one by one).
>>
>> Fix this by splitting off the tail of complete_action() to a new
>> start_rebase() function and call that from sequencer_continue() when no
>> commands have been executed yet.
>>
>> More or less as a side effect, we no longer checkout `onto` before exiting
>> when the todo file is bad.
>
>I think the implications of this change deserve to be discussed in the
>commit message. Three things spring to mind but there may be others I
>haven't thought of
>
> - Previously when rebase stopped and handed control back to the user
> HEAD would have already been detached. This patch changes that
> meaning we can have an active rebase of a branch while that branch is
> checked out. What does "git status" show in this case? What does the
> shell prompt show? Will it confuse users?
>
the failed state is identical to the "still editing the initial todo"
state as far as "git status" and the shell prompt are concerned. this
seems reasonable. i'll add it to the commit message.
> - Previously if the user created a commit before running "rebase
> --continue" we'd rebase on to that commit. Now that commit will be
> silently dropped.
>
this is arguably a problem, but not much different from the pre-existing
behavior of changes to HEAD done during the initial todo edit being
lost.
to avoid that, we'd need to lock HEAD while editing the todo. is that
realistic at all?
on top of that, i should verify HEAD against orig-head in
start_rebase(). though the only way for the user to get out of that
situation is saving the todo contents and --abort'ing (and we must take
care not the touch HEAD).
this is somewhat similar to the abysmal situation of the final
update-ref failing if the target ref has been modified while being
rebased. we'd need to lock that ref for the entire duration of the
rebase to avoid that.
> - Previously if the user checkout out another commit before running
> "rebase --continue" we'd rebase on to that commit. Now we we rebase
> on to the original "onto" commit.
>
this can be subsumed into the above case.
> > This makes aborting cheaper and will simplify
> > things in a later change.
>
>Given that we're stopping so the user can fix the problem and continue
>the rebase I don't think optimizing for aborting is a convincing reason
>for this change on its own.
>
this is all part of the "More or less as a side effect" paragraph, so
this isn't a relevant objection.
>> diff --git a/builtin/revert.c b/builtin/revert.c
>> index 62986a7b1b..00d3e19c62 100644
>> --- a/builtin/revert.c
>> +++ b/builtin/revert.c
>> @@ -231,7 +231,8 @@ static int run_sequencer(int argc, const char **argv, struct replay_opts *opts)
>> return ret;
>> }
>> if (cmd == 'c')
>> - return sequencer_continue(the_repository, opts);
>> + return sequencer_continue(the_repository, opts,
>> + 0, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>
>It's a bit unfortunate that we have to start passing all these extra
>parameters, could the sequencer read them itself in read_populate_opts()?
>
that wouldn't help in this case, as these are dummy values which aren't
going to be used.
but more broadly, the whole state management is a total mess. i have
this notes-to-self patch on top of my local branch:
--- a/builtin/rebase.c
+++ b/builtin/rebase.c
@@ -476,6 +476,7 @@ static const char *state_dir_path(const char *filename, struct rebase_options *o
}
/* Initialize the rebase options from the state directory. */
+// FIXME: this is partly redundant with the sequencer's read_populate_opts().
static int read_basic_state(struct rebase_options *opts)
{
struct strbuf head_name = STRBUF_INIT;
@@ -552,6 +553,7 @@ static int read_basic_state(struct rebase_options *opts)
return 0;
}
+// This is written only by the apply backend
static int rebase_write_basic_state(struct rebase_options *opts)
{
write_file(state_dir_path("head-name", opts), "%s",
>> -int sequencer_continue(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts)
>> +static int start_rebase(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned flags,
>> + const char *onto_name, const struct object_id *onto,
>> + const struct object_id *orig_head, struct todo_list *todo_list);
>
>It would be nice to avoid this forward declaration. I think you could do
>that by adding a preparatory patch that moves either checkout_onto() or
>sequencer_continue()
>
i went for the "minimal churn" approach.
but more broadly, the code distribution between rebase.c and sequencer.c
needs a *major* re-think. moving these functions into place could be
part of that effort.
>> + git reflog expire --expire=all HEAD &&
>
>Is this really necessary, can you pass -n to "git reflog" below?
>
starting from a clean slate makes it more straight-forward to make it
reliable. i don't see any real downsides to the approach.
>> + git reflog > reflog &&
>> + test $(grep -c fast-forward reflog) = 1 &&
>
>Using test_line_count would make test failures easier to debug.
>
that's calling for a new test_filtered_line_count function which would
have quite some users.
for the time being, both grep + test_line_count and grep -c are rather
prevalent, in this file the latter in particular.
>> + test_cmp_rev HEAD~1 primary~1 &&
>> + test "$(git log -1 --format=%B)" = "E_reworded"
>
>It is slightly more work, but please use test_cmp for things like this
>as it makes it so much easier to debug test failures.
>
fair enough, but the precedents again speak a different language.
regards
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-26 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-23 16:22 [PATCH 0/8] sequencer refactoring Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 1/8] rebase: simplify code related to imply_merge() Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:40 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-23 21:08 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] rebase refactoring Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rebase: simplify code related to imply_merge() Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rebase: handle --strategy via imply_merge() as well Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-09 17:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rebase: move parse_opt_keep_empty() down Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-08-15 14:01 ` Phillip Wood
2023-10-20 9:36 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] rebase refactoring Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-10-20 9:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] rebase: simplify code related to imply_merge() Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-10-20 9:36 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] rebase: handle --strategy via imply_merge() as well Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-10-20 21:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-10-20 9:36 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] rebase: move parse_opt_keep_empty() down Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-10-20 22:07 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] rebase refactoring Junio C Hamano
2023-10-23 15:43 ` Phillip Wood
2023-10-23 19:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 2/8] rebase: move parse_opt_keep_empty() down Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:39 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 3/8] sequencer: pass around rebase action explicitly Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:27 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 21:27 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 4/8] sequencer: create enum for edit_todo_list() return value Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:27 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 5/8] rebase: preserve interactive todo file on checkout failure Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:31 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 22:38 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-24 14:15 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-24 14:42 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 20:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-23 23:23 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-24 4:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 6/8] sequencer: simplify allocation of result array in todo_list_rearrange_squash() Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:46 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 22:13 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 7/8] sequencer: pass `onto` to complete_action() as object-id Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:34 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 21:36 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-24 14:18 ` Phillip Wood
2023-03-23 16:22 ` [PATCH 8/8] rebase: improve resumption from incorrect initial todo list Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-26 14:28 ` Phillip Wood
2023-04-26 15:34 ` Oswald Buddenhagen [this message]
2023-05-17 12:13 ` Phillip Wood
2023-08-24 16:46 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2023-03-23 19:38 ` [PATCH 0/8] sequencer refactoring Phillip Wood
2023-03-25 11:08 ` Phillip Wood
2023-04-06 12:09 ` Phillip Wood
2023-05-17 13:10 ` Phillip Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZElEis+PLDYR+Jvr@ugly \
--to=oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).