Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Sep 3, 2019, 01:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20190903013959.GA40029@syl.lan>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwoeqtbs2.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:21:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> > I like the idea of using existing tooling for this and not needing an
> > additional verb.
> >
> > My gut tells me folks may want a bit more control over *which* branches
> > are rebased, but I don't have a personal need for that, so I'm not going
> > to request it or propose an interface for it.
>
> FWIW, I am in favor of both of the above two points.  It is quite
> clear because "exec git branch -f <that branch name>" is spelled
> out, people can remove the ones they want to keep a copy of when
> they need to.

I agree with what you're saying here. I don't see myself having a need to modify the 'exec git branch -f ...' line, so I have no real need to make an interface suggestion per brian's comment above, but I happened to think of one while reading this thread that seemed worth pointing out.

Perhaps we could avoid inserting the 'exec git branch -f' step in the todo list for branches that have a configuration section forbidding them from being updated?

For example, the configuration:

  [branch "dont-update-me"]
    updateAfterRebase = false

would cause the rebase of a branch upstream from 'dont-update-me' to omit the 'git branch -f dont-update-me'.

To be honest, this configuration option seems like a knob we don't need. Especially since now three of us feel that removing the 'exec' line suffices anyway. I suppose that I could see a user wanting some integration branch to not get updated over many rebases, but it seems a little contrived.

Anyway, perhaps others can chime in and share what they think about this interface and whether or not we need it. If not, we can simply file this away.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I didn't look at the code more deeply than just eyeballing and
> noticing style violations etc., and will leave the reviewing to
> others for now.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks, Taylor