From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rebase: preserve interactive todo file on checkout failure
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:16:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq8rfn8bps.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230323162235.995574-6-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> (Oswald Buddenhagen's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2023 17:22:32 +0100")
Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> writes:
> Creating a suitable todo file is a potentially labor-intensive process,
> so be less cavalier about discarding it when something goes wrong (e.g.,
> the user messed with the repo while editing the todo).
Is there a reason why we do not always keep it? Why is the file
sometimes precious but not precious at all in other times?
Tying the previous bit to "-i was explicitly given" feels a bit
unintuitive---when the sequencer machinery was implicitly chosen,
and gives the control back to the user, should a user be forbidden
to muck with the todo list?
> diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> index a309addd50..728c869db4 100644
> --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static struct replay_opts get_replay_opts(const struct rebase_options *opts)
> replay.keep_redundant_commits = (opts->empty == EMPTY_KEEP);
> replay.quiet = !(opts->flags & REBASE_NO_QUIET);
> replay.verbose = opts->flags & REBASE_VERBOSE;
> + replay.precious_todo = opts->flags & REBASE_INTERACTIVE_EXPLICIT;
> replay.reschedule_failed_exec = opts->reschedule_failed_exec;
> replay.committer_date_is_author_date =
> opts->committer_date_is_author_date;
> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> index b1c29c8802..f8a7f4e721 100644
> --- a/sequencer.c
> +++ b/sequencer.c
> @@ -4570,6 +4570,10 @@ static int checkout_onto(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts,
> .default_reflog_action = sequencer_reflog_action(opts)
> };
> if (reset_head(r, &ropts)) {
> + // Editing the todo may have been costly; don't just discard it.
> + if (opts->precious_todo)
> + exit(1); // Error was already printed
No // comments, please.
> diff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
> index ff0afad63e..c625aad10a 100755
> --- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
> +++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
> @@ -288,13 +288,14 @@ test_expect_success 'abort' '
> '
>
> test_expect_success 'abort with error when new base cannot be checked out' '
> + test_when_finished "git rebase --abort ||:" &&
> git rm --cached file1 &&
> git commit -m "remove file in base" &&
> test_must_fail git rebase -i primary > output 2>&1 &&
> test_i18ngrep "The following untracked working tree files would be overwritten by checkout:" \
> output &&
> test_i18ngrep "file1" output &&
> - test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-merge &&
> + test_path_is_dir .git/rebase-merge &&
> rm file1 &&
> git reset --hard HEAD^
> '
Are we happy to just see that the directory still exists? I thought
the original motivation explained in the proposed log message was to
keep the todo list file, so shouldn't you be checking if the file is
there (and if you can reliably ensure that the file has contents
that are expected, that would be even better)?
Also, as the keeping of the todo list is now conditional, we should
have another test that checks that the file is gone when that
condition ("INTERACTIVE_EXPLICIT"?) does not trigger, I think.
Other than that, nicely written. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-23 20:16 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 [this message]
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
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=xmqq8rfn8bps.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de \
/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).