Hi Elijah,
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:18 PM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1195,6 +1201,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > + if (options.reschedule_failed_exec && !is_interactive(&options))
> > + die(_("--reschedule-failed-exec requires an interactive rebase"));
> > +
>
> I was surprised at first that you checked is_interactive() rather than
> checking for --exec being specified. But I guess this is because users
> can manually specify 'exec' lines.
Indeed, that is exactly the reason.
> What if the user specifies an implicitly interactive rebase (i.e. no
> editing of the todo list, such as with --rebase-merges or
> --keep-empty, or soon --strategy or --strategy-option) and also
> doesn't specify --exec?
Then the todo list won't have any `exec` lines, and the flag is irrelevant
(but does not do any harm).
... except in the case that the rebase fails at some stage, the user edits
the todo list with `git rebase --edit-todo` and inserts an `exec` line.
So I would contend that it still makes sense to allow that flag in those
cases, i.e. whenever the user asked for the interactive backend.
> > @@ -534,6 +545,9 @@ then
> > # git-rebase.txt caveats with "unless you know what you are doing"
> > test -n "$rebase_merges" &&
> > die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine '--preserve-merges' with '--rebase-merges'")"
> > +
> > + test -n "$reschedule_failed_exec" &&
> > + die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine '--preserve-merges' with '--reschedule-failed-exec'")"
> > fi
> >
> > if test -n "$rebase_merges"
>
> In the builtin rebase, you checked that --reschedule-failed-exec had
> to be used with an interactive rebase. Here in the legacy rebase you
> have no such check at all.
>
> Not sure if that's an oversight, or if we're at the point where we
> just start intentionally allowing legacy rebase to lag and soon throw
> it out. (When do we get to that point?)
Good point. My thinking was that the legacy rebase does not matter all
that much anymore, I would expect that we get rid of it in v2.21.0.
But you're right, I should not intentionally diverge the functionality out
of sheer laziness.
Will fix.
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.
Thanks!
Dscho
