Hi Johannes,
On 29/05/17 06:59 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Liam,
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Liam Beguin wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>>> index 130cc868e51..88819a1a2a9 100644
>>> --- a/sequencer.c
>>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>>> @@ -2388,3 +2388,52 @@ void append_signoff(struct strbuf *msgbuf, int ignore_footer, unsigned flag)
>>>
>>> strbuf_release(&sob);
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +int sequencer_make_script(int keep_empty, FILE *out,
>>> + int argc, const char **argv)
>>> +{
>>> + char *format = NULL;
>>> + struct pretty_print_context pp = {0};
>>> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>>> + struct rev_info revs;
>>> + struct commit *commit;
>>> +
>>> + init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
>>> + revs.verbose_header = 1;
>>> + revs.max_parents = 1;
>>> + revs.cherry_pick = 1;
>>> + revs.limited = 1;
>>> + revs.reverse = 1;
>>> + revs.right_only = 1;
>>> + revs.sort_order = REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER;
>>> + revs.topo_order = 1;
>>> +
>>> + revs.pretty_given = 1;
>>> + git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
>>> + if (!format || !*format) {
>>> + free(format);
>>> + format = xstrdup("%s");
>>> + }
>>> + get_commit_format(format, &revs);
>>> + free(format);
>>> + pp.fmt = revs.commit_format;
>>> + pp.output_encoding = get_log_output_encoding();
>>> +
>>> + if (setup_revisions(argc, argv, &revs, NULL) > 1)
>>> + return error(_("make_script: unhandled options"));
>>> +
>>> + if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs) < 0)
>>> + return error(_("make_script: error preparing revisions"));
>>> +
>>> + while ((commit = get_revision(&revs))) {
>>> + strbuf_reset(&buf);
>>> + if (!keep_empty && is_original_commit_empty(commit))
>>> + strbuf_addf(&buf, "%c ", comment_line_char);
>>
>> I've never had to use empty commits before, but while testing this, I
>> noticed that `git rebase -i --keep-empty` behaves differently if using
>> the --root option instead of a branch or something like 'HEAD~10'.
>> I also tested this on v2.13.0 and the behavior is the same.
>
> FWIW the terminology "empty commit" is a pretty poor naming choice. This
> is totally not your fault at all. I just wish we had a much more intuitive
> name to describe a commit that does not introduce any changes to the tree.
>
> And yes, doing this with --root is a bit of a hack. That's because --root
> is a bit of a hack.
>
> I am curious, though, as to the exact differences you experienced. I mean,
> it could be buggy behavior that needs to be fixed (independently of this
> patch series, of course).
>
Sorry, reading this I realized that I didn't give any details!
When using --root, --keep-empty has no effect. The empty commits
do not appear in the todo list and they are removed.
Also, when using --root without --keep-empty, the empty commits
do not show up as comments in the list.
> Ciao,
> Johannes
>
Liam