From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:59:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] rebase [-i --exec | -ix] <CMD>...
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:
> 
> 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