Re: Aborting git rebase --edit-todo

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> > Victor Toni <victor.toni@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > >> I think the implementor chose the first interpretation.  The "drop"
> > >> insn is a relatively recent invention, and back when it was missing
> > >> from the vocabulary, I do not think it was possible to say " discard
> > >> all the rest" without emptying the todo list, so that design is
> > >> understandable.
> > >>
> > >> Now we have the "drop" verb, the latter interpretation becomes
> > >> possible without making it impossible for the user to express the
> > >> former.  It might be a good idea to
> > >>
> > >>  (1) save away the original before allowing --edit-todo to edit,
> > >>
> > >>  (2) open the editor, and
> > >>
> > >>  (3) when getting an empty buffer back, go back to step (2) using
> > >>      the back-up made in step (1).
> > >>
> > >> Either way, the todo list editor buffer can have additional comment
> > >> instructing what happens when the buffer is emptied.
> > >>
> > > Personally I would like to see your approach (1,2,3) implemented
> > > because it is not destructive. If the user wants to achieve something
> > > different he can retry.
> >
> > Obviously I agree that the approach would be nicer than the status
> > quo.  It would not be as trivial as a microproject, but would be a
> > good bite-sized starter-task for those aspiring developers who want
> > to dip their toes in the water to start hacking on the codebase ;-)
> >
> Nice try ;) Speaking of toes ... I'm currently involved in another
> project from tip to toe.
> I would like to come back to your offer sometime next year when I've
> completed the other one.