Hi Alban
On 10/01/2020 21:31, Alban Gruin wrote:
Hi Phillip,
Le 10/01/2020 à 18:13, Phillip Wood a écrit :
Hi Alban
On 09/01/2020 21:13, Alban Gruin wrote:
Hi Phillip,
[...]
In which case, if the check did not pass at the previous edit, the new
todo list should be compared to the backup. As sequencer_continue()
already does this, extract this to its own function in
rebase-interactive.c. To keep track of this, a file is created on the
disk (as you suggested in your other email.) At the next edit, if this
file exists and no errors were found, it is deleted. The backup is only
created if there is no errors in `todo_list' and in `new_todo'.
This would guarantee that there is no errors in the backup, and that the
edited list is always compared to a list exempt of errors.
This approach also has the benefit to detect if a commit part of a
badcmd was dropped.
After some tweaks (ie. `expect' now lists 2 commits instead of one),
this passes the test with the change you suggested, and the one you sent
in your other email.
That sounds good. I'm not sure how it passes the test in my other email
though, if sequencer_continue() compares the todo list to the backup
wont it still fail when continuing after conflicts as the backup is out
of date?
I changed sequencer_continue() to check the todo list only if the file
indicating an error exists.
That makes sense
I still have to rewrite the commit message, then I’ll re-send this series.
Excellent, I look forward to reading them
Best Wishes
Phillip
Cheers,
Alban
Best Wishes
Phillip
