Re: [PATCH 4/7] commit: fix patch hunk editing with "commit -p -m"

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 10, 2014, 20:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20140310200756.GC24568@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1394477377-10994-5-git-send-email-benoit.pierre@gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:49:34PM +0100, Benoit Pierre wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Don't change git environment: move the GIT_EDITOR=":" override to the
> hook command subprocess, like it's already done for GIT_INDEX_FILE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benoit Pierre <benoit.pierre@gmail.com>
> ---
>  builtin/checkout.c                |  8 +++----
>  builtin/clone.c                   |  4 ++--
>  builtin/commit.c                  | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  builtin/gc.c                      |  2 +-
>  builtin/merge.c                   |  6 +++---
>  commit.h                          |  3 +++
>  run-command.c                     | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  run-command.h                     |  6 +++++-
>  t/t7513-commit_-p_-m_hunk_edit.sh |  2 +-
>  9 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

This is a lot of change, and in some ways I think it is making things better overall. However, the simplest fix for this is basically to move the setting of GIT_EDITOR down to after we prepare the index.

Jun Hao (cc'd) has been preparing a series for this based on the Bloomberg git hackday a few weeks ago, but it hasn't been sent to the list yet.

Commits are here:

  https://github.com/bloomberg/git/compare/commit-patch-allow-hunk-editing

if you care to look. I'm not sure which solution is technically superior, but it's worth considering both.

I regret not encouraging Jun to post to the list sooner, as we might have avoided some duplicated effort. But that's a sunk cost, and we should pick up whichever is the best for the project.

-Peff