From: Phillip Wood Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:11:24 GMT Subject: Re: Opinions on merging questions (Was: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2022, #01; Thu, 3)) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20220204081336.3194538-1-newren@gmail.com> On 04/02/2022 08:13, Elijah Newren wrote: > Hi, > > I thought I'd respond to some of your questions with my opinion and > pointers, in case it's helpful... > >> * pw/fix-some-issues-in-reset-head (2022-01-26) 14 commits >> - rebase -m: don't fork git checkout >> - rebase --apply: set ORIG_HEAD correctly >> - rebase --apply: fix reflog >> - reset_head(): take struct rebase_head_opts >> - rebase: cleanup reset_head() calls >> - create_autostash(): remove unneeded parameter >> - reset_head(): make default_reflog_action optional >> - reset_head(): factor out ref updates >> - reset_head(): remove action parameter >> - rebase --apply: don't run post-checkout hook if there is an error >> - rebase: do not remove untracked files on checkout >> - rebase: pass correct arguments to post-checkout hook >> - t5403: refactor rebase post-checkout hook tests >> - rebase: factor out checkout for up to date branch >> >> Use an internal call to reset_head() helper function instead of >> spawning "git checkout" in "rebase", and update code paths that are >> involved in the change. >> >> Will merge to 'next'? >> May want to rename the topic branch to "pw/use-in-process-checkout-in-rebase" >> or something before doing so. >> source: > > This series seems good to me and I think it's ready, but the topic > branch rename sounds good. Thanks for looking at the latest version. I think it is ready for next. Ævar suggested using a designated initialize in the conversion of reset_head() to take a struct but I think that makes it harder to review the conversion c.f. <7b56e91b-a7c9-b7cb-356c-e9615b9459fa@gmail.com>. He seemed to be happy with the rest of the series. Best Wishes Phillip