Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] rebase -i: avoid stale "# This is a combinationof" in commit messages
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Apr 25, 2018, 12:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1804251442510.4978@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <12fa9a1f-9dc2-9108-132f-48b75ae5a8d3@talktalk.net>
Hi Phillip,
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> On 23/04/18 19:11, Stefan Beller wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin > > <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Eric Sunshine pointed out that I had such a commit message in > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cRrS0_nYJJY=O6cboV630sNQHPV5QGrQdD8MW-sYzNFGQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > > and I went on a hunt to figure out how the heck this happened. > > > > > > Turns out that if there is a fixup/squash chain where the *last* command > > > fails with merge conflicts, and we either --skip ahead or resolve the > > > conflict to a clean tree and then --continue, our code does not do a > > > final cleanup. > > > > > > Contrary to my initial gut feeling, this bug was not introduced by my > > > rewrite in C of the core parts of rebase -i, but it looks to me as if > > > that bug was with us for a very long time (at least the --skip part). > > > > > > The developer (read: user of rebase -i) in me says that we would want to > > > fast-track this, but the author of rebase -i in me says that we should > > > be cautious and cook this in `next` for a while. > > > > I looked through the patches again and think this series is good to go. > > I've just realized I commented on an outdated version as the new version was > posted there rather than as a reply to v1. I've just looked through it and I'm > not sure it addresses the unnecessary editing of the commit message of the > previous commit if a single squash command is skipped as outlined in > https://public-inbox.org/git/b6512eae-e214-9699-4d69-77117a0daec3@talktalk.net/
I have not forgotten about this! I simply did not find the time yet, is all...
The patch series still has not been merged to `next`, but I plan on working on your suggested changes as an add-on commit anyway. I am not quite sure yet how I want to handle the "avoid running commit for the first fixup/squash in the series" problem, but I think we will have to add *yet another* file that is written (in the "we already have comments in the commit message" conditional block in error_failed_squash())...
Ciao, Dscho