On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 6:46 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anyhow, thanks for reading over the series. I appreciate it even if > our "sense of priority" doesn't always align (as evidenced by your > review comments and my responses). To be clear, the changes you suggest all make sense, and would be welcome (especially the bug fixes), but I consider them lower priority than the fixes in this series, and here's why: The commit object corruption caused by the bugs fixed by this series are unavoidable. Anyone using "rebase -i --root" to swap in a new commit as root is going to end up with a corrupt repository no matter what. There's no way to side step it. And, most people won't know how to fix the corruption, assuming they even notice it. If I understand correctly, the issues you describe are unlikely to come up in practice. The only way they can arise is if someone hand edits the script (something only power users will do) _and_ botches the edit in the process, or if the person's name contains an apostrophe (possible, though perhaps uncommon?). Also, (if again I understand correctly) they are only data "corruptions", not genuine broken-repository corruptions, thus are more likely to be fixable by a typical user. So it's not that I think your proposed fixes and suggestions are unimportant, I just don't think they belong in this series, and would be happy to see them atop it. Thanks.
