Re: [PATCH 0/8] Sequencer Foundations
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 12, 2011, 08:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110512084136.GD28872@elie>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTi=zXWojMOfe9sECUu-X9euCjr4i3w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Christian Couder wrote:
> I think that the risk at this point might be to overengineer things > and to lose time, and then we will perhaps find out that we need to do > some refactoring of the merge_recursive API anyway.
I agree with the general principle... let's see if I understand the details of what you are saying.
> If we have cherry-pick with --abort, --continue and --skip that just > works as well or nearly as well (because it's new) as other stuff it > will be already a very good thing.
Does "other stuff" mean scripts like "git rebase"? If I understand correctly, "git rebase" updates the $dotest directory before each cherry-pick, unlike this series which only updates $dotest after a failed cherry-pick.
Show 6 quoted lines
> And with enough tests we will > hopefully be able to build and refactor safely after that. Maybe we > will eventually find out that what you suggest is in fact needed even > for cherry-pick with --abort, --continue and --skip, but for now I > would prefer trying to make it work with as few changes and work as > possible.
I suspect that refactoring everything to use error() in place of die() requires more risky changes and work than updating .git/sequencer/ between cherry-picks. Of course I can easily be wrong.
Hoping that is clearer, Jonathan