Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: May 13, 2013, 08:32 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqobcfcmb8.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0mWRC9_QVYAu9Q4iAoVTpfkf9xkc9apjrdv6SyEiCq+hA@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Especially I did not check if there are
>> still undesirable data loss behaviour in corner cases that people
>> were worried about in the discussion.
>
> Check the tests.  What am I missing?

I didn't do a thorough check, but my earlier comments are taken into account, I didn't see anything wrong and the tests in 7/7 are good.

Show 8 quoted lines

>>    Perhaps "rebase" can be taught to be more careful when checking
>>    if local changes may overlap with the changes being replayed.
>
> Frankly, I don't know if it's worth the effort.  It might be a nice
> theoretical exercise, but what tangible benefit do I get as the end
> user (now that I have rebase.autostash)?  In fact, I'll probably be
> slowing down the interactive rebase noticeably by executing a
> diff-tree at every step.  And for what?

One benefit would be to avoid triggering rebuild (and editor reload) by keeping the timestamps intact. But I agree it's probably not worth the effort (and definitely isn't in the scope of this series).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/