From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:12:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [GSoC][RFC v2] Improve consistency of sequencer commands
Message-ID: <CABPp-BFknrV8ALFTifcZ4-nzqy_yWO=7zdkemzcA2kfrZ+4_9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD3b8wxj=T+HpeFAQNGLghs8fpEvQusP7Wq-BRZb3c50dg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 12:16 AM Christian Couder
<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 6. `[Bonus]` If everything goes well and time permits, discuss with the mentor(s)
> > the possibility of deprecating the am backend of rebase. This point is last to
> > work on as it provides no "cosmetic" difference on the user side. Elijah
> > [mentioned][12] the possibility of a "social" problem that might occur which shall
> > be discussed then.
>
> Maybe it would be interesting to see if there is a performance
> difference between the 2 backends.

Yes, it may make sense to repeat
https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1901312310280.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/
to verify we're still in a good state, and maybe even try to figure
out why split-index is weird.  However, more important is the handling
of empty commits (both start-empty and become-empty) and trying to
bring some consistency there or at least implementing more options for
the interactive backend and figuring out which empty-handling options
should be the default for which sets of flags.  It's kind of a mess.