On 01/12/2018 20:02, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:32:48AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Would it not make more sense to add a command-line option (and a config
setting) to re-schedule failed `exec` commands? Like so:
Your proposition would do in most cases, however it is not possible to
make a distinction between reschedulable and non-reschedulable commands.
True. But I don't think that's so terrible.
What I think is something to avoid is two commands that do something very,
very similar, but with two very, very different names.
In reality, I think that it would even make sense to change the default to
reschedule failed `exec` commands. Which is why I suggested to also add a
config option.
I sometimes add "x false" to the top of the todo list to stop and create
new commits before the first one. That would be awkward if I could never
get past that line. However, I think elsewhere a "pause" line has been
discussed, which would serve the same purpose.
I wonder how often this kind of "yes, I know it fails, but keep going
anyway" situation would come up. And what the interface is like for
getting past it. E.g., what if you fixed a bunch of stuff but your tests
still fail? You may not want to abandon the changes you've made, but you
need to "rebase --continue" to move forward. I encounter this often when
the correct fix is actually in an earlier commit than the one that
yields the test failure. You can't rewind an interactive rebase, so I
complete and restart it, adding an "e"dit at the earlier commit.
How would I move past the test that fails to continue? I guess "git
rebase --edit-todo" and then manually remove it (and any other remaining
test lines)?
Perhaps we could teach git rebase --skip to skip a rescheduled command,
it could be useful if people want to skip rescheduled picks as well
(though I don't think I've ever had that happen in the wild). I can see
myself turning on the rescheduling config setting but occasionally
wanting to be able to skip over the rescheduled exec command.
Best Wishes
Phillip
That's not too bad, but I wonder if people would find it more awkward
than the current way (which is to just "rebase --continue" until you get
to the end).
I dunno. I am not sure if I am for or against changing the default, so
these are just some musings. :)
-Peff
