On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:01:40 +0900, Junio wrote:
> Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:46 +0900, Junio wrote:
>>
>>> We haven't seen much complaints and breakages reported against the
>>> two big "rewrite in C" topics around "rebase"; perhaps it is a good
>>> time to merge them to 'next' soonish to cook them for a few weeks
>>> before moving them to 'master'?
>>
>> In my opinion, the `--rebase-merges' feature has been broken since the
>> beginning, and the builtin version should be fixed before it is moved
>> ahead.
>
> [...]
>
> If "rebase-merges" has been broken since the beginning, as long as the
> "rewrite in C" topics around "rebase" do not make it even worse, I do
> not think it is a good move to block the topics moving forward. If the
> feature were so broken that it is not practically useful, then people
> wouldn't be using it in the versions of Git before the rewrite, so it
> won't harm anybody if the same feature in the rewritten version is
> equally (or even more severely) broken, as long as the other parts of
> the feature works at least equally well compared to the older version.
>
> We are not in the business of hostage taking.
>
> What *should* block the rewrited version is a regression, i.e.
> something that used to work well no longer works or works differently
> in such a way that established workflows need to be adjusted.
>
> [...] I do not think that is a reason to keep "rewrite in C" waiting in
> 'pu'.
* Your logic is appealing, and I nearly pursuaded myself by the same
reasoning to submit my email as a separate discussion, as you suggest.
However, what convinced me otherwise is the following:
The closer you move the rewrite to a fast-forward-only public
branch name, the more likely downstream projects are going to
set up new, long-lived releases around this very useful but
nevertheless broken feature.
The moment you announce a new release, there are going to be a bunch of
people who grab that release and then NEVER look back, and so the rest
of us will be stuck with this problem for who knows how long.
So, not only is this an appeal to the authors to fix this problem, but
its also an appeal to you to make sure that the next major release
includes the fix.
* Also, I say the following without irony or tongue in cheek:
Maybe, no one has complained because few people are using this
feature yet, or their commit summaries are simplistic, or they've
got workarounds (as I've got).
Not only must this feature be turned on explicitly, but `git' has
existed for over a decade *without* it; users who are interested in
sophisticated management of commit history have already developed other
ways to achieve the same result (I know I did), or their commit
messages are so simplistic that the bug is never triggered, or they
just plan around it by automatically running a quick search/replace for
the offending characters or for the irritating "labels".
If the last decade has shown us anything, it's that git's fundamentals
are so good that programmers can get around any bug on their own,
without having to appeal to others for help. And, what is a programmer
if not someone who is used to making things Just Work [Damnit]?
As an illustration, consider the recent `break' command that is being
added to the repertoire of `git rebase -i'. Hell, I (and probably many
others) have been doing that for YEARS with:
x false
No need for a "new" command. I bet that 10 years from now, people will
*still* be using their own ways, and will *still* be totally oblivious
to the existence of `break'.
That is to say, I wouldn't put much faith in the degree to which people
report issues. The programming world has a lot of itchy backs, and just
as many personal inventions for scratching them.
As always, thanks for taking the time to review everyone's input.
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
