From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:25:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] rebase: command "ref" and options --rewrite-{refs,heads,tags} Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110628131717.GA6822@dr-wily.mit.edu> Hi Greg! Greg Price writes: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 06:47:58AM -0400, Greg Price wrote: >> I agree with your footnote -- the more general case will require a >> more powerful sequencer to support properly.  And now I see that >> Ramkumar Ramachandra is making progress on such a thing right now! >> That's great news -- this is a project that has been attempted at >> least four times, by five people (including me), in the last three >> years.  I hope to see this round make it in -- I was actually thinking >> about returning to the problem after seeing this series through, but I >> would be glad to see Ram beat me to it. You're more than welcome to join in -- all the work is public :) The latest iteration of the sequencer is in 'pu', and I'm currently busy rolling out a nicer version. > Hmm, on further reading I'm not sure the sequencer Ram aims to build > this summer actually extends to the "mark" and "reset" commands (or > the concepts of "the rewritten " and "detach" in the > pseudo-TODO notation of your footnote) that would be required to > implement this broader rewrite-side-branches feature.  It looks like > the focus may be on taking the existing features of rebase and > bringing them into C. Yes, you're absolutely right. Bringing the existing features to C is quite a challenging task in itself, and is bound to keep me busy for the rest of the summer. I don't plan to implement the features your series introduces yet, but it's certainly a great long-term goal -- I think the current series has all the right ingredients; it just requires a lot of work before it can start providing more features. > This sounds great too -- it should make rebase a lot faster -- but it > will leave open the pet project I've thought about returning to, of > making "rebase -i -p" work correctly even when the user wants to > rearrange the commits rather than just s/pick/edit/ etc.  That will > require implementing a richer sequencer very like the one required for > a general rewrite-side-branches feature. Right. Since all this will take time, it'll probably be a good idea to get your series merged in now. -- Ram