On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Wink Saville <wink@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Patch 0001 creates a library of functions which can be >> used by git-rebase--interactive and >> git-rebase--interactive--preserve-merges. The functions are >> those that exist in git-rebase--interactive.sh plus new >> functions created from the body of git_rebase_interactive >> that will be used git_rebase_interactive in the third patch >> and git_rebase_interactive_preserve_merges in the second >> patch. None of the functions are invoked so there is no >> logic changes and the system builds and passes all tests >> on travis-ci.org. >> >> Patch 0002 creates git-rebase--interactive--preserve-merges.sh >> with the function git_rebase_interactive_preserve_merges. The contents >> of the function are refactored from git_rebase_interactive and >> uses existing and new functions in the library. A small modification >> of git-rebase is also done to invoke the new function when the -p >> switch is used with git-rebase. When this is applied on top of >> 0001 the system builds and passes all tests on travis-ci.org. >> >> The final patch, 0003, removes all unused code from >> git_rebase_interactive and uses the functions from the library >> where appropriate. And, of course, when applied on top of 0002 >> the system builds and passes all tests on travis-ci.org. > > A problem with this approach is that it loses "blame" information. A > git-blame of git-rebase--interactive--lib.sh shows all code in that > file as having arisen spontaneously from thin air; it is unable to > trace its real history. It would be much better to actually _move_ > code to the new file (and update callers if necessary), which would > preserve provenance. > > Ideally, patches which move code around should do so verbatim (or at > least as close to verbatim as possible) to ease review burden. > Sometimes changes to code are needed to make it relocatable before > movement, in which case those changes should be made as separate > preparatory patches, again to ease review. > > As it is, without detailed spelunking, it is not immediately clear to > a reviewer which functions in git-rebase--interactive--lib.sh are > newly written, and which are merely moved (or moved and edited) from > git-rebase--interactive.sh. This shortcoming suggests that the patch > series could be re-worked to do the refactoring in a more piecemeal > fashion which more clearly holds the hands of those trying to > understand the changes. (For instance, one or more preparatory patches > may be needed to make the code relocatable, followed by verbatim code > relocation, possibly iterating these steps if some changes depend upon > earlier changes, etc.) > > Thanks. Must all intermediate commits continue build and pass tests?
