Re: [PATCH] sequencer: don't re-read todo for revert and cherry-pick
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 25, 2019, 10:47 UTC
- Message-ID
- <8881749f-195e-7f24-6f38-3b0a53ef8e1e@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqo8x0zros.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio
On 25/11/2019 01:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> - } else if (check_todo && !res) {
>>>> + } else if (is_rebase_i(opts) && check_todo && !res) {
>>>
>>> It is a bit sad that setting of check_todo is not something a single
>>> helper function can decide, so that this is_rebase_i(opts) can be
>>> taken into account when that helper function (the logical place
>>> would be do_pick_commit()) decides to set (or not set) check_todo.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that is not sufficient, I suspect. Why did a47ba3c7
>>> ("rebase -i: check for updated todo after squash and reword",
>>> 2019-08-19) decide to flip check_todo on when running TODO_EXEC?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this
>>
>> This is what I had before I saw Gábor's patch (the tests are pretty
>> similar but I think we should check that the messages of all the picks
>> are actually edited with --edit - that does not seem to be checked by
>> the current tests)...
>
> I first thought that unsetting *check_todo in do_pick_commit(), when
> !is_rebase_i(), was a clean solution. But sadly it is *not* a godo
> equivalent to Gábor's patch, because check_todo can be set to true
> without looking at is_rebase_i() in pick_commits() [*1*]. That only happens if we're running a rebase as exec commands are not used by cherry-pick and revert so the unconditional setting that remains after my suggested fix should be safe. Prior to a47ba3c7 ("rebase -i: check for updated todo after squash and reword", 2019-08-19) we always checked for an updated todo list after processing an exec command without checking is_rebase_i()
Best Wishes
Phillip
Show 18 quoted lines
> To ignore
> that setting where the variable's value is used, the hunk we see
> above in the beginning of this message is necessary.
>
> That was what I meant. I think the "This is what I had before"
> patch matches my "I first thought" version, so we were on the same
> page and both wrong ;-)
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> [Footnote]
>
> *1* I still do not know why a47ba3c7 ("rebase -i: check for updated
> todo after squash and reword", 2019-08-19) sets check_todo to true
> without looking at is_rebase_i(). If this unconditonal setting in
> TODO_EXEC did not exist, I think your "This is what I had before"
> patch would have been equivalent to Gábor's patch.