Hi Phillip,
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023, Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget wrote:
> Range-diff vs v3:
>
> 1: 1ab1ad2ef07 ! 1: ae4f873b3d0 rebase -i: move unlink() calls
> @@ Metadata
> ## Commit message ##
> rebase -i: move unlink() calls
>
> - At the start of each iteration the loop that picks commits removes
> - state files from the previous pick. However some of these are only
> - written if there are conflicts and so we break out of the loop after
> - writing them. Therefore they only need to be removed when the rebase
> - continues, not in each iteration.
> + At the start of each iteration the loop that picks commits removes the
> + state files from the previous pick. However some of these files are only
> + written if there are conflicts in which case we exit the loop before the
> + end of the loop body. Therefore they only need to be removed when the
> + rebase continues, not at the start of each iteration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 2: e2a758eb4a5 ! 2: f540ed1d607 rebase -i: remove patch file after conflict resolution
> @@ Commit message
> now used in two different places rebase_path_patch() is added and used
> to obtain the path for the patch.
>
> + To construct the path write_patch() previously used get_dir() which
> + returns different paths depending on whether we're rebasing or
> + cherry-picking/reverting. As this function is only called when
> + rebasing it is safe to use a hard coded string for the directory
> + instead. An assertion is added to make sure we don't starting calling
> + this function when cherry-picking in the future.
> +
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ## sequencer.c ##
> @@ sequencer.c: static GIT_PATH_FUNC(rebase_path_amend, "rebase-merge/amend")
> * For the post-rewrite hook, we make a list of rewritten commits and
> * their new sha1s. The rewritten-pending list keeps the sha1s of
> @@ sequencer.c: static int make_patch(struct repository *r,
> + char hex[GIT_MAX_HEXSZ + 1];
> + int res = 0;
> +
> ++ if (!is_rebase_i(opts))
> ++ BUG("make_patch should only be called when rebasing");
> ++
> + oid_to_hex_r(hex, &commit->object.oid);
> + if (write_message(hex, strlen(hex), rebase_path_stopped_sha(), 1) < 0)
> return -1;
> res |= write_rebase_head(&commit->object.oid);
>
> 3: 8f6c0e40567 ! 3: 818bdaf772d sequencer: use rebase_path_message()
> @@ Commit message
> made function to get the path name instead. This was the last
> remaining use of the strbuf so remove it as well.
>
> + As with the previous patch we now use a hard coded string rather than
> + git_dir() when constructing the path. This is safe for the same
> + reason (make_patch() is only called when rebasing) and is protected by
> + the assertion added in the previous patch.
> +
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ## sequencer.c ##
> 4: a1fad70f4b9 = 4: bd67765a864 sequencer: factor out part of pick_commits()
> 5: df401945866 ! 5: f6f330f7063 rebase: fix rewritten list for failed pick
> @@ Commit message
> disabled the user will see the messages from the merge machinery
> detailing the problem.
>
> - To simplify writing REBASE_HEAD in this case pick_one_commit() is
> - modified to avoid duplicating the code that adds the failed command
> - back into the todo list.
> + The code to add a failed command back into the todo list is duplicated
> + between pick_one_commit() and the loop in pick_commits(). Both sites
> + print advice about the command being rescheduled, decrement the current
> + item and save the todo list. To avoid duplicating this code
> + pick_one_commit() is modified to set a flag to indicate that the command
> + should be rescheduled in the main loop. This simplifies things as only
> + the remaining copy of the code needs to be modified to set REBASE_HEAD
> + rather than calling error_with_patch().
>
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 6: 2ed7cbe5fff = 6: 0ca5fccca17 rebase --continue: refuse to commit after failed command
> 7: bbe0afde512 = 7: 8d5f6d51e19 rebase -i: fix adding failed command to the todo list
Thank you for indulging me. This iteration looks good to me!
Ciao,
Johannes
