From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:22:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] rebase -i: improve error message when picking merge
Message-ID: <28796edf-65eb-4f28-8651-af97e00cabc9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7cfbp6pb.fsf@gitster.g>

Hi Junio

On 30/05/2024 18:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>>   1:  1bcf92c6105 ! 1:  91c6f2f1b45 rebase -i: pass struct replay_opts to parse_insn_line()
>>       @@ builtin/rebase.c: static int edit_todo_file(unsigned flags)
>>        @@ builtin/rebase.c: static int do_interactive_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts, unsigned flags)
>>         		error(_("could not generate todo list"));
>>         	else {
>>       - 		discard_index(&the_index);
>>       + 		discard_index(the_repository->index);
>>        -		if (todo_list_parse_insn_buffer(the_repository, todo_list.buf.buf,
>>        -						&todo_list))
>>        +		if (todo_list_parse_insn_buffer(the_repository, &replay,
> 
> OK.  It would probably have been unnecessary to rebase only for this
> update.

I agree the conflict is easy to solve but GitGitGadget gets upset and 
refuses to run the ci if it cannot merge the branch into master

>>       + ## Documentation/config/advice.txt ##
>>       +@@ Documentation/config/advice.txt: advice.*::
>>       + 		`pushNonFFCurrent`, `pushNonFFMatching`, `pushAlreadyExists`,
>>       + 		`pushFetchFirst`, `pushNeedsForce`, and `pushRefNeedsUpdate`
>>       + 		simultaneously.
>>       ++	rebaseTodoError::
>>       ++		Shown when there is an error after editing the rebase todo list.
> 
> This thing is new.  It is unclear to me if this description is clear
> enough to readers that we are checking the edited todo list for
> errors.

I'm happy to improve it if you have any suggestions - I had hoped "after 
editing" would be clear enough.

>  It is clear enough from the actual code change, and the
> readers come to this list after advise_if_enabled() triggers and
> reports that the rebaseTodoError knob allows them to squelch it, so
> it probably is OK.
> 
> Thanks, will replace.  Let's see if we see comments from others and
> then mark it for 'next' soonish.

Thanks

Phillip