W dniu 31.08.2016 o 21:10, Junio C Hamano pisze:
> Jakub Narębski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>>> index 06759d4..3398774 100644
>>> --- a/sequencer.c
>>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>>> @@ -709,6 +709,8 @@ static int read_and_refresh_cache(struct replay_opts *opts)
>>> struct todo_item {
>>> enum todo_command command;
>>> struct commit *commit;
>>> + const char *arg;
>>> + int arg_len;
> I am not sure what the "commit" field of type "struct commit *" is
> for. It is not needed until it is the commit's turn to be picked or
> reverted; if we end up stopping in the middle, parsing the commit
> object for later steps will end up being wasted effort.
>From what I understand this was what sequencer did before this
series, so it is not a regression (I think; the commit parsing
was in different function, but I think at the same place in
the callchain).
>
> Also, when the sequencer becomes one sequencer to rule them all, the
> command set may contain something that does not even mention any
> commit at all (think: exec).
The "exec" line is a bit of exception, all other rebase -i commands
take commit as parameter. It could always use NULL.
>
> So I am not sure if we want a parsed commit there (I would not
> object if we kept the texual object name read from the file,
> though). The "one sequencer to rule them all" may even have to say
> "now give name ':1' to the result of the previous operation" in one
> step and in another later step have an instruction "merge ':1'".
> When that happens, you cannot even pre-populate the commit object
> when the sequencer reads the file, as the commit has not yet been
> created at that point.
True, --preserve-merges rebase is well, different.
Best,
--
Jakub Narebski