On Sun Dec 22, 2019 at 2:58 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 03:52:53PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > The situations where I need rerere-train don't come up often, but when > > > they do, it has always worked easily and without hiccups for me. So > > > perhaps there are lurking gotchas that Junio might know about, but AFAIK > > > the quality is high enough for it to be part of normal Git. > > > > I actually suspect that rewriting has a high chance of initially > > degrading the quality, so we should take a two step approach if we > > really want it as part of the core distribution. As to the UI, I > > think "git rerere train a..b" would be a good one, but if the > > scripted version is of high quality (I haven't looked at it for a > > long time---even though I used it for a couple of times a year in > > recent years), perhaps we can add it as "git-rerere--train" > > subcommand that is spawned from "builtin/rerere.c" for the first > > cut? > > > Yeah, I'd be pretty happy with that, too. > > > I just suspect its ultimate fate is conversion to C, given the general > trend. And converting it to C that just calls out to other git commands > via run_command would presumably behave just like the original, leaving > the more challenging and error-prone conversion for later. Hopefully any > upgrade to "real Git command" would include some tests, though. :) > > > -Peff Thanks for the feedback everyone! This is roughly the feedback I expected. I think moving the shell version first will give more time to focus on getting a strong test harness in place and a some decent documentation. I happy with doing this in a multi phase approach as it introduces less risk. When I get to the point of writing it in C I will try to do the work internally by looking at commits as Jeff has suggested, and fall back to run commands if I have to.
