Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The command fed to `--exec` might need some contextual information from
> the branch name. But there is no convenient access to the branch name
> that we were on before starting the rebase; rebase operates in detached
> HEAD mode so we cannot ask for it directly. This means that we need to
> parse something like this from the first line of `git branch --list`:
>
> (no branch, rebasing <branch>)
>
> This is a moderate amount of effort for something that git-rebase(1) can
> store for us.
>
> To that end, teach `--exec` about an env. variable which stores the
> branch name for the rebase-in-progress, if applicable.
You seem to be saying that `git branch --list` output already
contains the necessary information but it is shown in a hard to use
format. Is the information given at least always accurate and
reliable?
Assuming it is, do you know where "git branch --list" gets that
information when it says "(no branch, rebasing <branch>)"?
git-rebase(1) is already storing information sufficient to let "git
branch --list" to produce that information, and there are other ways
to inspect that state ("git status" gives the same information but
it also is in a "meant for humans" format).
So, isn't it just the matter of surfacing the information that we
are already recording and is already available in a fashion that is
easier to use? For example, if "git status --porcelain=[version]"
does not give the information, perhaps you can add a line or two to
it, instead of duplicating the same information in two places?
It comes from wt-status.c:wt_status_check_rebase() where state->branch
is assigned to, by reading "$GIT_DIR/rebase-{apply,merge}/head-name".
