Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not switch branch during a rebase unless -f is given

From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 28, 2010, 05:47 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTin19PREB3B68s+ejsgtXwe3CBxZF-caCvRp4UXv@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinUudOXmhKW-+rkcpzb-VNnSBLZwGZcjrS6UdMu@mail.gmail.com>

2010/9/28 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:

Show 13 quoted lines

> (+cc: Frédéric, Dscho, Christian)
>
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
>> It does not make much sense to switch branch when you are in a middle
>> of a rebase. Sometimes you might want to switch away for a moment then
>> back with "git checkout - ". But I find myself so many times switching
>> away then forget that I was rebasing something.
>>
>> Avoid doing that by default. Users can use -f if they really want to.
>
> Nice! But I worry is that scripts that use "git checkout" porcelain
> during a rebase would be broken.

Right. I used git-rebase from my installation, the new "git checkout" from worktree and missed that as a result.

Show 16 quoted lines

> Even rebase --interactive uses checkout from time to time:
>
>  - for preserving merges
>  - to move to the correct branch in response to "git rebase -i
> <upstream> <branch>"
>  - to move to the target in "git rebase -i --onto <new base> <upstream>"
>
> Unfortunately I do not have any good advice. Would it make sense to
>
>  - first, change these call sites in git to use checkout -f
>  - teach checkout to warn (without erroring out) to give people time
> to change their scripts
>  - warn loudly about the upcoming change in the release notes
>  - later, change checkout to error out when -f is not supplied
>
> or am I being too paranoid?

No. But I don't like the idea of making scripts use "checkout -f". My intention was to stop users from doing that, not scripts. Putting "-f" everywhere might have more negative side effects.

Maybe adding "--porcelain" to checkout first, updating scripts to use it, then only check for rebase/bisect/am when --porcelain is missing.

-- 
Duy