Hi Junio, On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Earlier, Peff sent this patch (slightly buried in a discussion) on > "rebase -i" in <20160729223134.GA22591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > Subject: rebase-interactive: drop early check for valid ident > > > > Since the very inception of interactive-rebase in 1b1dce4 > > (Teach rebase an interactive mode, 2007-06-25), there has > > been a preemptive check, before looking at any commits, to > > see whether the user has a valid name/email combination. > > > > This is convenient, because it means that we abort the > > operation before even beginning (rather than just > > complaining that we are unable to pick a particular commit). > > > > However, it does the wrong thing when the rebase does not > > actually need to generate any new commits (e.g., a > > fast-forward with no commits to pick, or one where the base > > stays the same, and we just pick the same commits without > > rewriting anything). In this case it may complain about the > > lack of ident, even though one would not be needed to > > complete the operation. > > > > This may seem like mere nit-picking, but because interactive > > rebase underlies the "preserve-merges" rebase, somebody who > > has set "pull.rebase" to "preserve" cannot make even a > > fast-forward pull without a valid ident, as we bail before > > even realizing the fast-forward nature. > > > > This commit drops the extra ident check entirely. This means > > we rely on individual commands that generate commit objects > > to complain. So we will continue to notice and prevent cases > > that actually do create commits, but with one important > > difference: we fail while actually executing the "pick" > > operations, and leave the rebase in a conflicted, half-done > > state. > > > > In some ways this is less convenient, but in some ways it is > > more so; the user can then manually commit or even "git > > rebase --continue" after setting up their ident (or > > providing it as a one-off on the command line). > > > > Reported-by: Dakota Hawkins <dakotahawkins@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > To which, I responded (referring to the last paragraph): > > Yup, that is the controvercial bit, and I suspect Dscho's original > was siding for the "set up ident first, as you will need it anyway > eventually", so I'll let others with viewpoints different from us to > chime in first before picking it up. > > Do you have a preference either way to help us decide if we want to > take this change or not? I have no strong preference. I guess that it does not hurt to go with the patch, and it would probably help in a few cases. Ciao, Dscho