Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] sequencer: simplify handing of fixup with conflicts

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 15, 2026, 09:20 UTC
Message-ID: <5c9991e0-81f8-41f8-b78c-b436d4a494b1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alTxn7MmX3aH_7gp@ugly.lan>

Hi Oswald

On 13/07/2026 15:09, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:17:23PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> Commit e032abd5a0 (rebase: fix rewritten list for failed pick,
>> 2023-09-06) introduced an early return when res == -1, so if we enter
>> this conditional block then res is positive. After the last couple
>> of commits the only possible positive value is 1 so we can simplify
>> the code by removing the conditional call to intend_to_amend() and
> 
>> call it error_with_patch() instead.
>>
> that part makes no sense,

It should say "call it in error_with_patch() instead"

Show 5 quoted lines

> subverting the argumentation.
> (as-is, i actually can't follow the logic, but i suppose it would be 
> clear with (much) more diff context. i'm not sure whether the commit 
> message is supposed to substitute for that, or the reviewer is supposed 
> to deal with that on their end.)

Its tricky because error_with_patch() isn't changed at all, we change error_failed_squash() to tell error_with_patch() to call intend_to_amend(). I've expanded the commit message to explain that better.

Thanks

Phillip