Re: interrupting "git rebase" (Re: git rebase +)

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2011, 10:03 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0=QfXcFD7-0-Pz_uGPp5fNpRHqqgcYPXRR7=7uq92mzGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111015194414.GB12893@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>

Hi,

Jonathan Nieder writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>>>> Hitting Ctrl-C during git-rebase results undefined behavior.
> [...]
>>> Wait, really?  That's bad, and unlike most git commands.
>>
>> If Ctrl-C is pressed while the state is being written, it could be
>> left with incomplete information, yes. It has been like that forever I
>> think. I'll put it on my todo list, but it will not be my top priority
>> (and I have very little git time now anyways).
> [...]

Ah, yes.  I've been bitten by this behavior several times myself :)

Show 15 quoted lines

>>> By the way, what happened to the "git rebase --abort-softly" synonym
>>> for "rm -fr .git/rebase-apply" discussed a while ago?
>>
>> I think we simply did not agree on a syntax, but here was also some
>> discussion about future plans for the sequencer. I remember seeing
>> some discussions about making "git reset --hard" remove the sequencer
>> state, but I don't remember the conclusion. It is not clear to me what
>> is ok to implement in git-rebase nowadays and what would just be
>> double work if it needs to be re-implemented in the sequencer.
> [...]
> Certainly, a lot of sequencer features were inspired by "git rebase".
> Improvements to "git rebase" are only likely to make future
> improvements to "git sequencer" easier.  Part of what helps here is
> that "git rebase" is a shell script, so it is a little easier to
> prototype features there.

I concur. Work on `git rebase` should continue independently of the sequencer because that's where we pick up ideas from! I don't see it as double-work: simply a translation of ideas. Apart from the fixup mini-series, the overall interface of the sequencer is still very unclear to me (see long discussion with Junio, Jonathan).

Yes, 95eb88 (reset: Make reset remove the sequencer state, 2011-08-04) is merged. But it's pretty unrelated to the main issue at hand: sure, "reset --hard" is a great hammer, but that shouldn't prevent us from developing tools and interfaces that are more sophisticated and elegant, no? In other words, I think "--abort-softly" is a great idea: we should pour ideas into our shell scripts!

Thanks.

-- Ram