Hi Phillip, On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 25/04/18 13:48, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > > > On 23/04/18 19:11, Stefan Beller wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin > > > > <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Eric Sunshine pointed out that I had such a commit message in > > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cRrS0_nYJJY=O6cboV630sNQHPV5QGrQdD8MW-sYzNFGQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > and I went on a hunt to figure out how the heck this happened. > > > > > > > > > > Turns out that if there is a fixup/squash chain where the *last* > > > > > command fails with merge conflicts, and we either --skip ahead > > > > > or resolve the conflict to a clean tree and then --continue, our > > > > > code does not do a final cleanup. > > > > > > > > > > Contrary to my initial gut feeling, this bug was not introduced > > > > > by my rewrite in C of the core parts of rebase -i, but it looks > > > > > to me as if that bug was with us for a very long time (at least > > > > > the --skip part). > > > > > > > > > > The developer (read: user of rebase -i) in me says that we would > > > > > want to fast-track this, but the author of rebase -i in me says > > > > > that we should be cautious and cook this in `next` for a while. > > > > > > > > I looked through the patches again and think this series is good > > > > to go. > > > > > > I've just realized I commented on an outdated version as the new > > > version was posted there rather than as a reply to v1. I've just > > > looked through it and I'm not sure it addresses the unnecessary > > > editing of the commit message of the previous commit if a single > > > squash command is skipped as outlined in > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/b6512eae-e214-9699-4d69-77117a0daec3@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I have not forgotten about this! I simply did not find the time yet, > > is all... > > I wondered if that was the case but I wanted to check as I wasn't sure > if you'd seen the original message as it was on an obsolete version of > the series > > > The patch series still has not been merged to `next`, but I plan on > > working on your suggested changes as an add-on commit anyway. I am not > > quite sure yet how I want to handle the "avoid running commit for the > > first fixup/squash in the series" problem, but I think we will have to > > add *yet another* file that is written (in the "we already have > > comments in the commit message" conditional block in > > error_failed_squash())... > > I wonder if creating the file in update_squash_messages() rather than > error_failed_squash() would be a better approach as then it is easy to > only create rebase_path_amend_type() when there has already been a > squash or fixup. The file is removed in the loop that picks commits in > pick_commits() so it would be cleaned up at the beginning of the next > pick if it's not needed. That would be a good idea in general, but I think we have to take care of the following scenario: pick <- succeeds squash <- succeeds fixup <- fails, will be skipped In this case, we do need to open the editor. But in this scenario, we do not: pick <- succeeds fixup <- succeeds squash <- fails, will be skipped If we write the amend-type file in update_squash_messages(), we would write "squash" into it in both cases. My hope was to somehow avoid that. I just realized that the current iteration does not fulfill that goal, as the message-fixup file would be long gone by the time error_failed_squash() was called in the latter example. Also, I realized something else: my previous work-around for the GETTEXT_POISON case (where I fail gently when a commit message does not contain the "This is a combination of #<count> commits" count in ASCII) would be much superior if it simply would not abuse the comment in the commit message, but had a robust, non-l18ned way to count the fixup/squash commits. My current thinking is to reconcile both problems by shunning the amend-type and instead just record the sequence of fixup/squash commits that went into HEAD, in a new file, say, current-fixups. To answer the question how many commit messages are combined, I then simply need to count the lines in that file. To answer the question whether a skipped fixup/squash requires the editor to be launched, I can simply look whether there is a "squash" line (ignoring the last line). Oh, and I also forgot to test whether this is the "final fixup". If we are skipping a "fixup" in the middle of a chain, there is no need to clean the commit message to begin with. This will take a while... ;-) Ciao, Dscho
