Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I have been assuming the "main" thing Duy wanted to do was the last
> test (and the one below), but was this meant as an improvement for
> "git status" output during that state? Showing $ONTO certainly
> makes some sense, and from that point of view, the change we are
> discussing _will_ be a regression if it just shows a random thing.
>
> If you want to avoid regression, the codepath in wt-status.c should
> compensate for the change to "rebase" so that it checks $dotest/onto
> and show what is recorded in there.
And it might be just the matter of doing something like this
(totally untested, of course). Then the people who want to improve
"status" to give more detailed state during "rebase" can further
enhance the logic in this part to give more detailed information.
I have a feeling that without changing anything in t7512 but
applying the change to commit.c in your [6/6], most tests in there
would still pass, and you may even uncover latent *bug* that
expected to show a wrong $ONTO value in "# HEAD detached from/at"
line.
wt-status.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index bf84a86..403d48d 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -1176,7 +1176,11 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
branch_name += 11;
else if (!strcmp(branch_name, "HEAD")) {
branch_status_color = color(WT_STATUS_NOBRANCH, s);
- if (state.detached_from) {
+
+ if (state.rebase_in_progress) {
+ on_what = _("HEAD detached at ");
+ branch_name = state.onto;
+ } else if (state.detached_from) {
unsigned char sha1[20];
branch_name = state.detached_from;
if (!get_sha1("HEAD", sha1) &&
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html