On 08.03.23 20:40, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Yes; as I said over in the other branch of this thread, I agree that it would be great to have this in status, but I'm afraid I'm not the one to drive the work to get it in there. I don't have the capacity to contribute to yet another open source project. If somebody else wanted to take this on, I'd be happy to join any design discussions, or do early testing to see if whatever is being added works for my use case. -Stefan
