From: Stephan Beyer Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:06:16 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/4] Add git-sequencer shell prototype Message-ID: <20080704010616.GH6677@leksak.fem-net> In-Reply-To: Hi again, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > I'd not check in sequencer for the strategy. Especially given that we > > > want to support user-written strategies in the future. > > > > I don't know how this is planned to look like, but perhaps > > --list-strategies may make sense here, too. Funny, a merge with an unknown merge strategy acts somehow like my proposed --list-strategies (at least on git-merge.sh, haven't checked on builtin-merge) But that is just a silly side note. > No. You just do not check for strategies. Period. Well, I've seen that my strategy_check (which is now removed) only produces a warning, so it had no big effect at all. So I've tested merge --strategy=hours (to simulate a typo): -- -- snip paste -- -- Testing: git sequencer todotest1 available strategies are: recur recursive octopus resolve stupid ours subtree Error merging * FAIL 33: merge multiple branches and --reuse-commit works -- -- snap paste -- -- That means, with the information that can be seen, a user should easily be able to fix that, i.e. run git-sequencer --edit and fix the line. So I accept your period sign now ;-) > and you can easily abort a rebase if you explicitely asked for an invalid > strategy. Aborting after fixing a lot of conflicts in the sequencer process is really annoying. So I've chosen to never abort automatically. (That was one of the first things that I changed after I first used my own sequencer for real work and not only test cases.) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Beyer , PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F