Re: [PATCH 14/22] sequencer: prepare for rebase -i's commit functionality

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2016, 21:32 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8tvf8dmz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d83fa095c03eac9abfd1038ff7791bae8ace984.1472457609.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

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

> +/* We will introduce the 'interactive rebase' mode later */
> +#define IS_REBASE_I() 0

I do not see a point in naming this all caps. The use site would be a lot more pleasant to read when the reader does not have to care if this is implemented as a preprocessor macro or a helper function.

Show 23 quoted lines

> @@ -377,20 +387,72 @@ static int is_index_unchanged(void)
>  	return !hashcmp(active_cache_tree->sha1, head_commit->tree->object.oid.hash);
>  }
>  
> +static char **read_author_script(void)
> +{
> +	struct strbuf script = STRBUF_INIT;
> +	int i, count = 0;
> +	char *p, *p2, **env;
> +	size_t env_size;
> +
> +	if (strbuf_read_file(&script, rebase_path_author_script(), 256) <= 0)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	for (p = script.buf; *p; p++)
> +		if (skip_prefix(p, "'\\\\''", (const char **)&p2))
> +			strbuf_splice(&script, p - script.buf, p2 - p, "'", 1);
> +		else if (*p == '\'')
> +			strbuf_splice(&script, p-- - script.buf, 1, "", 0);
> +		else if (*p == '\n') {
> +			*p = '\0';
> +			count++;
> +		}

Hmph. What is this loop doing? Is it decoding a sq-quoted buffer or something? Don't we have a helper function to do that?

Show 24 quoted lines

> +	env_size = (count + 1) * sizeof(*env);
> +	strbuf_grow(&script, env_size);
> +	memmove(script.buf + env_size, script.buf, script.len);
> +	p = script.buf + env_size;
> +	env = (char **)strbuf_detach(&script, NULL);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +		env[i] = p;
> +		p += strlen(p) + 1;
> +	}
> +	env[count] = NULL;
> +
> +	return env;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * If we are cherry-pick, and if the merge did not result in
>   * hand-editing, we will hit this commit and inherit the original
>   * author date and name.
>   * If we are revert, or if our cherry-pick results in a hand merge,
> - * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that.
> + * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that
> + * (except, of course, while running an interactive rebase).
>   */

The added "(except, ...)" reads as if "even if we are reverting, if that is done as part of an interactive rebase, the authorship rule for a revert does not apply".

If that is not what you meant, i.e. if you did not mean to imply that "rebase -i" doing a revert is a normal thing, this needs to be rephrased to avoid the misinterpretation.