Re: Is there any way to "interrupt" a rebase?

> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> > It might be even possible to design a new subcommand for the interactive
>> > rebase to facilitate a variation of this strategy (possibly even making
>> > use of the fact that the interactive rebase accumulates mappings between
>> > the original commits and the rewritten ones in
>> > $GIT_DIR/rebase-merge/rewritten-list, intended for use in the post-rewrite
>> > hook).
>>
>> This feature might look somewhat like this:
>>
>>       git rebase --replay-latest-commits 3
>>
>> and it would not even have to look at the `rewritten-list`. All it would
>> do is to put back the latest `pick` from the `done` file (in case of merge
>> conflicts) into the `git-rebase-todo` file, then insert `pick lines for
>> HEAD~3.. at the beginning of that todo file, and then `git reset --hard
>> HEAD~3`.
>
> Keep in mind that the "pick" lines could be "edit", "squash", etc.
>
> I think the general form of your original email's proposal is something
> like: What if we had a "git rebase --rewind" that could "undo" the prior
> command? So if I had a todo file like:
>
>   pick 1
>   edit 2
>   x make test
>   edit 3
>   x make test
>   pick 4
>
> and I failed at the second "make test", then I'd have:
>
>   pick 1
>   edit 2
>   x make test
>   edit 3
>   x make test
>
> in the "done" file, with the final pick remaining in "todo". Could I
> then ask to "rewind" my state by moving "x make test" back to the
> "todo". And two rewinds would get me back to applying patch 3, which I
> could then fix up and re-run my test. Or four rewinds would get me back
> to patch 2, which maybe is where I made the initial mistake.
>
> That's a bit more primitive than what you're proposing in this
> follow-on, because you'd be doing the replay yourself (unless we remap
> the commits). But it's very easy to reason about and implement.
>
> Anyway, just musing at this point. I haven't thought it through, but I
> like the direction of everything you're saying. ;)
>
> -Peff