Re: [PATCH 0/3] rebase: offer to reschedule failed exec commands automatically

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2018, 03:28 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpnu8lp2p.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kY18SCaCBvkWyeVd+oeJ4EhoJK4=QxGhJ9a77iX2sR8ew@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> I wonder if it might be better to push this mechanism
> one layer down: Instead of having a flag that changes
> the behavior of the "exec" instructions and having a
> handy '-y' short cut for the new mode, we'd rather have
> a new type of command that executes&retries a command
> ...
> By having two classes, I would anticipate fewer compatibility
> issues ('"Exec" behaves differently, and I forgot I had turned
> on the rescheduling').

It takes us back to the original proposal that started this whole thing.

    cf. <3fb5a7ff-a63a-6fac-1456-4dbc9135d088@gmail.com>

After re-reading the thread, I still do not quite follow why it was considered better to change the way "exec" is run with the command line option than to implement this as a new insn [*1*], but that is where this series fit in the larger picture, I think.

[Footnote]

*1* The original proposal called it "test" which I do not think was
    a great name.