Re: [PATCH 2/6] rebase: prepare to write reflog message for checkout
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2013, 18:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0k3Wr7x_4NAHzY0xEg7sQG6qLe2cr2tJusGZBNHEtPNHg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vbo79vqzm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> [...]
Will fix those.
> I suspect doing 6/6 before this patch may make more sense.
Yeah, I'd done it like that in the original (early preview thing). Allow me to explain why I flipped the ordering.
The problem I am facing is that 6/6 causes very major breakages, and 5/6 attempts to minimize that fallout and make life for 6/6 easier. The problem with putting this patch (and the rebase -i) after those two is simple: it calls set_reflog_action, but never explicitly indicates that it wants to set the reflog message for checkout. As a result, the reflog messages are merely accidental and will look like:
rebase rebase -i (start)
in both the critical patches (5/6 and 6/6). This was an absolute debugging disaster for me, and I didn't know what wt-status was trying to tell me with its cryptic "detached HEAD to" and "detached HEAD from" messages.
Makes sense?