Sorry it's taken awhile for me to get back to this thread. I've been keeping my open source contributions timeboxed, and had to work through a bit of a backlog before this email thread got back to the front of the queue. > What would the command-line experience look like for this workflow? Be specific, including examples! Yes, I agree that's critical. I'm not going to try to improvise an answer over email, but I will be sure to include such examples when I submit the patch to Documentation/technical, after some careful thought. > How does one create a commit that obsoletes another? I was planning to classify all git commands that create commits as either "modifications" or "clones". Modification commands (such as rebase or commit --amend) would automatically obsolete their predecessors. Clone commands (such as cherry-pick) would create copies without obsoleting the original. > Are we in the middle of an interactive rebase, or are we simply checking out the commit? To obsolete a commit, you'd just check it out and amend. You really wouldn't want to have to do anything extra or put yourself in a special mode to mark things as obsolete or they wouldn't be much of a convenience. However, if you were to run the "evolve" command (the thing that reads the obsolescence markers) and it encountered errors, you'd be in the middle of something very much like an interactive rebase. > How does a use keep track of their progress in a topic? > How do I view which commits in my topic are obsolete, and to what commits? > Do obsolescence markers live in the ref space? (This is one way to help answer the question above.) The answers to these questions are more complicated. I'll be sure to address them in the technical proposal, but I wouldn't want create a misunderstanding with an incomplete explanation. > Can I make multiple commits obsolete into one commit (merge patches)? Can I make my commit obsolete in multiple ways (split a patch)? How is this communicated to the user? Yes and yes. When a single commit is obsoleted by one or more non-obsolete commits, this is called divergence and it needs to be resolved by the user (the evolve command will stop when it encounters divergence, much like a rebase will stop when it encounters a merge conflict). Possible resolutions are to discard one of the two non-obsolete commits by marking them as obsolete, merge the two, or keep both by cloning one of them and marking it as no longer obsoleting its predecessor. Unnecessary divergence isn't a good thing since it requires user intervention to resolve. Splitting a patch doesn't need to create divergence (and probably shouldn't). If you split a commit, the earlier one would be a completely new commit and the latter one would obsolete the original. Doing it the other way around creates a merge conflict between the later commit and anything that followed the original. If both commits obsolete the original, it creates divergence - and either divergence or a merge would get the user involved unnecessarily. A more likely scenario where divergence would occur is of two different users try to amend the same commit and then share their results -- or if a user amends a commit, resets back to the original, and then amends it again. > Count me in to review the technical details. Will do! On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/29/2018 7:00 PM, Stefan Xenos wrote: >> >> Hello, List! > > > Hello! Welcome. > >> I'm interested in porting something like Mercurial's evolve command to >> Git. I'll be following up with a formal proposal shortly, but before I >> do I thought I'd introduce myself to the list and find out if anyone >> else is interested in this topic. > > > I'm CC'ing some contributors who have also expressed interest in this topic. > >> What is the evolve command? > > > I'm snipping the rest of your thread because I'm vaguely familiar with how > this is used in hg, but I haven't used it myself. Instead, I'm going to ask > you the same questions I asked the last time I had a conversation about this > with someone. In my opinion, these questions should have good answers before > we start working on the solution, or else we could paint ourselves into a > corner as we build the first pieces. > > --- > > What would the command-line experience look like for this workflow? Be > specific, including examples! > > How does one create a commit that obsoletes another? Are we in the middle of > an interactive rebase, or are we simply checking out the commit? How does a > use keep track of their progress in a topic? > > How do I view which commits in my topic are obsolete, and to what commits? > > If I want to obsolete commits on one machine and then finish the work on > another machine, how do I do that? Similarly: how can I share obsolete > commits with other users so they can apply them (or not)? > > Do obsolescence markers live in the ref space? (This is one way to help > answer the question above.) > > Can I make multiple commits obsolete into one commit (merge patches)? Can I > make my commit obsolete in multiple ways (split a patch)? How is this > communicated to the user? > > --- > > In my opinion, a good way to move forward is to create a patch that adds a > design document to Documentation/technical that answers these questions. > Then we can dig in more to make the vision clearer. > > I'm not a UX expert, but this seems like a place where we could use someone > with expertise in the area. If we are not careful, we could end up with > something even harder to use than interactive rebase. The main goal here is > to make it easy to rewrite a topic (plus, the ability to do so in stages). > > I look forward to see what goes on in this space. Count me in to review the > technical details. > > Thanks, > -Stolee
