git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 0/1] add git-splice subcommand for non-interactive branch splicing

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Jul 31, 2017, 22:18 UTC
Message-ID
<xmqqo9s0gsia.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To
<cover.55495badd28b73b39c60ca4107b50aae7ee95028.1501535033.git-series.git@adamspiers.org>
Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org> writes:
> Therefore there is a risk that each new UI for higher-level workflows
> will end up re-implementing these mid-level operations.  This
> undesirable situation could be avoided if git itself provided those
> mid-level operations.
Let me make sure if I get your general idea right, first.

Is your aim is to give a single unified mid-layer that these other tools can build on instead of rolling their own "cherry-pick these ranges, then squash that in, and then merge the other one in, ..." sequencing machinery?

If so, I think that is a very good goal.
Show 7 quoted lines
>     # Remove commits A..B (i.e. excluding A) from the current branch.
>     git splice A..B
>     # Remove commit A from the current branch.
>     git splice A^!
>     # Remove commits A..B from the current branch, and cherry-pick
>     # commits C..D at the same point.
>     git splice A..B C..D

We need to make sure that the mid-layer tool offers a good set of primitive operations that serve all of these other tools' needs. I do not know offhand if what you implemented that are illustrated by these examples is or isn't that "good set".

Assuming that there is such a "good set of primitives" surfaced at the UI level so that these other tools can express what they want to perform with, I'd personally prefer to see a solution that extends and uses the common "sequencer" machinery we have been using to drive cherry-picks, reverts and interactive rebases that work on multiple commits. IOW, it would be nice to see that the only thing "git splice A..B" does is to prepare a series of instructions in a file, e.g. .git/sequencer/todo, just like "git cherry-pick A..B" would, and let the sequencer machinery to handle the sequencing.

E.g. In a history like
    ---o---A---o---B---X---Y---Z   HEAD
"git splice A..B" command would write something like this:
    reset to A
    pick X
    pick Y
    pick Z

to the todo file and drive the sequencer. As you notice, you would need to extend the vocabulary of the sequencer a bit to allow various things that the current users of the sequencer machinery do not need, like resetting the HEAD to a specific commit, merging a side branch, remembering the result of an operation, and referring to such a commit in later operation. For example, if you tell "git splice" to expunge A from this sample history (I am not sure how you express that operation in your UI):

         B---C---D
        /         \
    ---o---A---E---F---G   HEAD
it might create a "todo" list like this to rebuild the history:
    reset to A^
    pick B
    pick C
    pick D
    mark :1
    reset to A^
    pick E
    merge :1 using F's log message and conflict resolution as reference
    pick G
to result in:
         B---C---D
        /         \
    ---o-------E---F---G   HEAD

Do not pay too much attention to how the hypothetical "extended todo instruction set" is spelled in the above illustration (e.g. I am not advocating for multi-word command like "reset to"); these are only to illustrate what kind of features would be needed for the job. In the final shape of the system, "merge" in the illustration above may be a more succinct "merge F :1", for example (i.e. the first parameter would name an existing merge to use as reference, the remainder is a list of commits to be merged to the current HEAD), just like "pick X" is a succinct way to say "cherry-pick the change introduced by existing commit X to HEAD, reusing X's log message and author information".

Something like that may have a place in the git-core, I would think. 

I am not sure if a bash script that calls rebase/cherry-pick/commit manually can serve as a good "universal mid-layer" or just adding another random command to the set of existing third-party commands for "higher-level workflows".

Previous: Adam SpiersNext: Adam Spiers
Message 3 of 4 in “add git-splice subcommand for non-interactive branch splicing”
  1. 0/1 add git-splice subcommand for non-interactive branch splicingAdam Spiers, Jul 31, 2017
  2. 1/1 add git-splice command for non-interactive branch splicingAdam Spiers, Jul 31, 2017
  3. Junio C HamanoJul 31, 2017
  4. Adam SpiersAug 1, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.