From: Oswald Buddenhagen Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 20:18:24 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] sequencer: update abort safety file more sparingly Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 08:48:14PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: >On 03/09/2023 20:25, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 07:40:00PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: >>> it only matters for "cherry-pick --skip" >>> >> that doesn't seem right. a --skip is just a --continue with a prior >> reset, more or less. > >sequencer_skip() calls rollback_is_safe() which checks the abort safety >file. > that's weird. can you think of a good reason for doing that? >> i'll try to find a better "choke point". > >I think that is probably tricky, > yeah >I'm not really clear what the aim/purpose of this refactoring is. > to make my head not explode. more specifically, to get it out of the way of the rebase path, which is what i'm actually concerned with. generally, i think this whole ad-hoc state management is a nightmare, and i'd be surprised if there weren't some more loose ends. i think i'd aim for an object-oriented-ish design with an encapsulated state, lazy loading getters, lazy setters, and a commit entry point (or maybe several partial ones). no idea how that would play out. >> if you did a fresh commit before or after the single pick, you'd lose >> it. > >Oh, I can see that you'd lose a commit made before a single pick but I >don't see how you'd lose a commit made after it. > right. thinko. it's a bit late here. ^^ regards