Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/4] Add git-sequencer prototype documentation
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 2, 2008, 00:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200807020239.41613.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080701195033.GD5301@leksak.fem-net>
Hi!
On Tue, 1 July 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Stephan Beyer wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:02:54AM -0700, >>> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Stephan Beyer wrote:
[...]
Show 10 quoted lines
>>>>> +ref <ref>:: >>>>> + Set ref `<ref>` to the current HEAD, see also >>>>> + linkgit:git-update-ref[1]. >>>> >>>> So this functions like "git reset --soft <ref>", isn't it? >>> >>> No. Why do you think that? `ref` is set, and not HEAD. >>> I think the description makes that clear. >> >> Ah. I'm sorry. So it is like "git branch <ref>", isn't it?
Actually I meant "git branch -f <ref>" here. But I forgot that it can be used to create lightweight tags, too.
> No. It is "git-update-ref <ref> HEAD".
So what do you envision would this be used for?
Show 6 quoted lines
>> What is important is: does it update reflog (correctly)? > > Good question. The reflog is another mistery to me that I haven't really > cared about, because I haven't used it yet myself. > At least the reflog test cases for git rebase -i in the test suite pass. > (Of course, this is only a weak indication that it works as it should.)
You have 'branch' (<onto>) reflog, HEAD reflog, and reflog for '<ref>'. While 'branch' reflog should I think record only start and end of sequencer, or rather git-am or git-rebase, I'm not sure what to do about HEAD reflog... We should fill reflog for <ref>, to be able to revert easily.
Show 19 quoted lines
>>>>> +squash [options] --from <mark>:: > [...] >>> Here an example why it is useful for user-editing: >>> >>> (on commit f00babe) >>> mark :1 >>> pick badcebab >>> patch foo >>> pick dadadada >>> squash -m "Foo the cebab" --signoff --from :1 >>> >>> This squashes all between the mark and the squash into one commit, >>> on top of f00babe. >> >> Ah, so squash --from <mark> picks up everything since "mark <mark>", >> but does not include marked commit! Clever! In this case allowing >> only <mark> is a good idea, IMVHO. > > Good, thanks :)
Although I guess having example would make it clear from the go...
Good work!
-- Jakub Narebski Poland