Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Let the sequencer handle the grunt work of rebase -i

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 9, 2017, 22:40 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1sv7ng2j.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1486678952.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> After all of these patch series y'all had to review, this is finally the
> one that switches things over.
>
> Please note that it does not (yet) handle the `git rebase -i --root`
> invocation; I tried to focus on the common case, and I rarely use --root
> myself.

As long as the longer-term goal is clear enough and the short-term approach does not conflict with the goal, solving the most common problem that yields the largest payback first is absolutely the right thing to do, and omitting "--root" and/or "-p" and getting the main use of "-i" right is a great way to start.

Show 9 quoted lines

>  .gitignore                    |  1 +
>  Makefile                      |  1 +
>  builtin.h                     |  1 +
>  builtin/rebase--helper.c      | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  git-rebase--interactive.sh    | 13 +++++++++++++
>  git.c                         |  1 +
>  t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh |  2 +-
>  7 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 builtin/rebase--helper.c

And it is surprisingly short and sweet ;-)

Will queue as js/rebase-helper topic, forked at 6e3a7b3398 ("Git 2.12-rc0", 2017-02-03).

Thanks.

PS. in case if anybody is wondering after reading [*1*], at this point, I _have_ read the patches not just the cover letter, looked at the branch name the original author gave to the topic, chose the local topic name I use, and chose where to fork the topic from, but have not applied the patches (so I may later end up saying "the patch does not apply cleanly", "the compiler complains on this line", or "the new code is inconsistent with this existing code that is a bit beyond the context of the patch that I did not notice when I reviewed the patches alone" in a separate message). I do not have a new entry for this topic in the draft of "What's cooking" report yet, or have not decided if the topic would hit 'jch' or 'pu' yet either.

[Reference]

*1* http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq7f4zqiyj.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com