On 19/06/17 05:45 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Liam,
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2017, Liam Beguin wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/17 09:56 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Liam Beguin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/06/17 09:08 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
>>>>> index a697906d463..a0e020dab09 100644
>>>>> --- a/sequencer.c
>>>>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>>>>> @@ -2640,3 +2640,110 @@ int check_todo_list(void)
>>>>>
>>>>> return res;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* skip picking commits whose parents are unchanged */
>>>>> +int skip_unnecessary_picks(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + const char *todo_file = rebase_path_todo();
>>>>> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>>>>> + struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
>>>>> + struct object_id onto_oid, *oid = &onto_oid, *parent_oid;
>>>>> + int fd, i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!read_oneliner(&buf, rebase_path_onto(), 0))
>>>>> + return error(_("could not read 'onto'"));
>>>>> + if (get_sha1(buf.buf, onto_oid.hash)) {
>>>>
>>>> I missed this last time but we could also replace `get_sha1` with
>>>> `get_oid`
>>>
>>> Good point!
>>>
>>> I replaced this locally and force-pushed, but there is actually little
>>> chance of this patch series being integrated in a form with which I
>>> would be comfortable.
>>
>> Is there any chance of this moving forward? I was hoping to resend my
>> path to abbreviate command names on top of this.
>
> We are at an impasse right now.
>
> Junio wants me to change this code:
>
> 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)
> ...
>
> which is reasonably compile-time safe, to something like this:
>
> struct strbuf userformat = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct argv_array args = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < argc; i++)
> argv_array_push(&args, argv[i]);
> git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
> if (!format || !*format)
> argv_array_push(&args, "--format=%s");
> else {
> strbuf_addf(&userformat, "--format=%s", format);
> argv_array_push(&args, userformat.buf);
> }
>
> if (setup_revisions(args.argc, args.argv, &revs, NULL) > 1)
> ...
> argv_array_clear(&args);
> strbuf_release(&userformat);
>
> which is not compile-time safe, harder to read, sloppy coding in my book.
>
> The reason for this suggestion is that one of the revision machinery's
> implementation details is an ugly little semi-secret: the pretty-printing
> machinery uses a global state, and that is why we need the "pretty_given"
> flag in the first place.
>
> Junio thinks that it would be better to not use the pretty_given flag in
> this patch series. I disagree: It would be better to use the pretty_given
> flag, also as a good motivator to work on removing the global state in the
> pretty-printing machinery.
>
> Junio wants to strong-arm me into accepting authorship for this sloppy
> coding, and I simply won't do it.
>
> That's why we are at an impasse right now.
>
> I am really, really sorry that this affects your patch series, as I had
> not foreseen Junio's insistence on the sloppy coding when I suggested that
> you rebase your work on top of my patch series. I just was really
> unprepared for this contention, and I am still surprised/shocked that this
> is even an issue up for discussion.
>
> Be that as it may, I see that this is a very bad experience for a
> motivated contributor such as yourself. I am very sorry about that!
It's not such a bad experience, I've found the people on the list to
be quite welcoming and supportive.
>
> So it may actually be better for you to go forward with your original
> patch series targeting git-rebase--interactive.sh.
I'll wait a bit longer to see how this goes and if it doesn't move, I'll
try re-sending an update to that series.
>
> My apologies,
> Dscho
>
Thanks,
Liam
