Stefan Haller <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 07.03.23 19:07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> Stepping a bit, how does our "git status" fare here? It shows what >> step in a sequence "rebase -i" the user who got control back (due to >> "break", "exec sh", "edit" or a conflicted "pick") is in. Or at >> least it tries to. Does it suffer from the same "great, but ..."? >> ... > > It fares a little better, but not much, and it doesn't look like I can > use its information to implement the behavior I want. Thanks. That is the kind of information I was trying to find. It means that the current "git status" does not give our users enough clue as to where in their "rebase -i" session they are at, and we will help more users by teaching "git status" the trick you are designing. Instead of peeking into how the implementation details like REBASE_HEAD currently happen to work, making sure underlying "git" knows how to present the information you want and letting it perform the heavy lifting would make sure the solution will stay supported across versions of future git.
