Re: [PATCH v5 20/20] rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2020, 19:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20200312191213.GE120942@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk13pfl3m.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi,

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

>> I'm a little worried about ignoring the setting and just picking one;
>
> I am more than a little worried, too.  I think erroring out is
> warranted in this case for exactly the reason you gave here.

To avoid misunderstandings: have you read the proposal I made that aims to avoid that problem?

Thanks, Jonathan

Show 6 quoted lines

>> if the setting has been marked and they set it to e.g. "appply" (one
>> too many p's), then does it really make sense to just show a warning
>> but continue using the backend they didn't want, especially since they
>> may miss the warning among the rest of the output?  I'd rather go the
>> route of improving the message, perhaps:
>>         _("Unknown rebase.backend config setting: %s")