Re: [PATCHv5] rebase [-i --exec | -ix] <CMD>...
- From
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2012, 20:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4FD8FF25.6030908@kdbg.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20120613213836.Horde.qI8GQnwdC4BP2Ow8uCTQqgA@webmail.minatec.grenoble-inp.fr>
Am 13.06.2012 21:38, schrieb konglu@minatec.inpg.fr:
Show 28 quoted lines
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit : > >> It looks that editing >> >> pick foo pick foo >> exec cmd1 exec cmd1 && cmd2 >> exec cmd2 >> pick bar pick bar >> exec cmd1 exec cmd1 && cmd2 >> exec cmd2 >> >> to >> >> pick foo pick foo >> exec cmd2 >> exec cmd2 >> pick bar pick bar >> exec cmd1 exec cmd1 >> >> would take exactly the same effort, at least to me. And more >> importantly, without editing don't they do *exactly* the same thing? >> If cmd1 fails, the sequencing stops at that step without running cmd2. > > True. I was thinking under the fact that the user would edit the commands > by himself but the purpose of the "--exec" option is to avoid that (or at > least that the user won't have to type all by himself). Forget what I said > then :).
Not so fast.
exec cmd1 && cmd2 and exec cmd1 exec cmd2
are far from equivalent: If cmd1 fails, the first version never runs cmd2, but the second version runs cmd2 upon rebase --continue.
The updated documentation should not say that the two are "equivalent".
-- Hannes