Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] sequencer: use rebase_path_message()

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 2, 2023, 22:02 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqedkl6r1t.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <619e458b-218b-a790-dfb4-9200e201b513@gmail.com>

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On 01/08/2023 18:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>>
>>> Rather than constructing the path in a struct strbuf use the ready
>>> made function to get the path name instead. This was the last
>>> remaining use of the strbuf so remove it as well.
>> The same comment about "get_dir() vs hardcoded rebase-merge" applies
>> here, I think.  And the same (1) assertion to ensure that we are in
>> "rebase -i" when make_patch() is called should give us a sufficient
>> safety valve,
>
> Agreed
>
>> or (2) instead of hardcoding rebase_path_message(),
>> call it sequencer_path_message() and switch at runtime behaving the
>> same way as get_dir(opts) based version, would also work.
>
> I think that would me misleading because cherry-pick/revert do not
> create that file - they rely on "git commit" reading .git/MERGE_MSG

Fair enough.

Abusing the MERGE_MSG this way probably came from the "if 'commit' picks up whatever is left inside MERGE_MSG when it is run, reusing it for this operation (even though it clearly is not a 'merge') would be a way to do with the least effort, even if it does not make sense for those who will be reading the code 3 years from now on" kind of hackery. The file probably outgrew its name and we might want to rename it to a more appropriate name (it is "we gave control back to the user to help us resolve a mess in the working tree, and here is the message to be used when the user is done"; the "mess" no longer is limited to conflicts created during a "merge").

But it would be a major headache if end-user tools are relying on it, so it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

So, moving to hardcoded "rebase-merge", as long as we make sure make_patch() will only callable by "rebase -i" (and not something like "cherry-pick -i" people will wish to add in the future), I am fine with such a design.

Thanks.