Re: [GSoC 2011] Git Sequencer
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 5, 2011, 18:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110405185929.GA25644@kytes>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LNX.2.00.1104051354500.14365@iabervon.org>
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Barkalow writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > > Excellent. The crux of the idea: The sequencer should serve as the > > entry/ exit point for Git when any operation requires user > > intervention to proceed. > > I'm a bit surprised by the idea of calling that "the sequencer" (rather > than having "the sequencer" be a command), but I actually think you're > entirely right to do so. Be sure to be very explicit about that, though, > because people will probably start with the wrong idea of what you're > proposing otherwise.
Ah. I'll make sure to word it unambiguously in the proposal, and link to this thread :)
Show 22 quoted lines
> > For this, it should have information about
> > how we got to this point, and how to proceed after the user
> > intervention is complete; this information is contained in:
> >
> > > cherry_pick_conflict = {
> > > "cherry-pick", APPLIES_TO_CURRENT_BRANCH | IN_MIDDLE_OF_COMMIT,
> > > cherry_pick_verify_resolution,
> > > cherry_pick_abort,
> > > cherry_pick_post_resolution
> > > };
> >
> > Wait -- isn't it missing a skip callback?
>
> I think "skip" is actually: abort the lowest-level conflict and continue
> the next-level conflict. If you're doing a rebase, and the rebase is doing
> a "pick", and the pick got a conflict, --skip means that you abort the
> pick (to get back to the state where the earlier commits have been picked
> but this one hasn't been started, followed by having the rebase continue
> with what it was going to do after the pick completed.
>
> So I don't think you need a "skip" callback, as long as you've untangled
> the levels cleanly and get the nesting support right.Okay. I'm not yet entirely clear about this yet, but I think it should be sorted out during implementation.
Show 23 quoted lines
> > cherry_pick_conflict = {
> > "cherry-pick", APPLIES_TO_CURRENT_BRANCH | IN_MIDDLE_OF_COMMIT,
> > cherry_pick_verify_resolution,
> > cherr_pick_skip,
> > cherry_pick_abort,
> > cherry_pick_post_resolution
> > };
> >
> > This information is passed to report_conflict(), which takes care of
> > user intervention. The user can do whatever she wants and then ask
> > the sequencer to "continue", "skip" or "abort":
>
> Right, although I think:
>
> $ git cheery-pick some-sha1
> Conflict needs to be fixed now!
>
> $ git skip
>
> should give an error message about the current conflict not being a step
> of a larger process. That is, you can always "continue" or "abort", but
> you can only "skip" if there's something to skip to, even if it's only the
> higher-order sequence reporting that it's completed successfully.Right, got it.
-- Ram