Re: [PATCH v2] rebase: write script before initializing state
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 23, 2025, 21:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq1pq6mw0j.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20250711203615.9982-1-oystwa@gmail.com>
Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com> writes:
Show 34 quoted lines
> If rebase.instructionFormat is invalid the repository is left in a > strange state when the interactive rebase fails. `git status` outputs > both the same as it would have in the normal case *and* something > related to the interactive rebase: > > $ git -c rebase.instructionFormat=blah rebase -i > fatal: invalid --pretty format: blah > $ git status > On branch master > Your branch is ahead of 'upstream/master' by 1 commit. > (use "git push" to publish your local commits) > > git-rebase-todo is missing. > No commands done. > No commands remaining. > You are currently editing a commit while rebasing branch 'master' on '8db3019401'. > (use "git commit --amend" to amend the current commit) > (use "git rebase --continue" once you are satisfied with your changes) > > get_commit_format() calls die() on failure so we cannot handle the error > gracefully. By attempting to write the rebase script before initializing > the state this bad state can be avoided. > > Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com> > --- > So sorry for the delay. I saw that the signoff was missing, then saw > Phillip's review, decided to think about it and then life happened in > the mean time... > > This patch is identical to the first one except it has the missing > signoff and a few typos in the commit message corrected. Phillip's > suggestions are noted and appreciated but unfortunately I am unable to > work on the at the moment. And I do think my patch is at least an > improvement albeit perhaps less thorough than it could have been.
I am sweeping my backlog and noticed that nobody chimed in to help improving this topic. As I already said, this would not least be moving a step in the right direction, so I am planning to mark it for 'next', but thought that I should check first before doing so, in case you are back on the topic and cooking a new iteration.
Thanks.