Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Junio, > > Le 22/06/2018 à 18:27, Junio C Hamano a écrit : >> Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > This rewrites (the misnamed) setup_reflog_action() from shell to C. The >> > new version is called checkout_base_commit(). >> >> ;-) on the "misnamed" part. Indeed, setting up the comment for the >> reflog entry is secondary to what this function wants to do, which >> is to check out the branch to be rebased. >> >> I do not think "base_commit" is a good name, either, though. When I >> hear 'base' in the context of 'rebase', I would imagine that the >> speaker is talking about the bottom of the range of the commits to >> be rebased (i.e. "rebase --onto ONTO BASE BRANCH", which replays >> commits BASE..BRANCH on top of ONTO and then points BRANCH at the >> result), not the top of the range or the branch these commits are >> taken from. >> > > Perhaps should I name this function checkout_onto(), and rename > checkout_onto() to "detach_onto()"? And I would reorder those two commits in > the series, as this would be very confusing. I may be misunderstanding what is happening in the function, but I think it is checking out neither the onto or the base commit. The function instead is about checking out the branch to be rebased before anything else happens when the optional <branch> argument is given (and when the optional argument is not given, then we rebase the current branch so there is no need to check it out upfront), no?
