Hi Ivan
On 10/02/2025 19:16, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
In rebase-heavy workflows involving multiple interdependent feature
branches, typing out `--update-refs` quickly becomes tiring, which
can be mitigated with setting the `rebase.updateRefs` git-config option
to perform update-refs by default.
However, the utility of `rebase.updateRefs` is somewhat limited because
you rarely want it in a non-interactive rebase (as it does not give you
the chance to review the update-refs candidates, likely leading to
updating refs that you didn't want updated -- I made quite an amount
of mess by setting this option and subsequently forgetting about it).
I'm a bit surprised by this - I'd have thought there is more scope for
messing things up by making a mistake when editing the todo list that
for the non-interactive case. Are you able to explain a in a bit more
detail the problem you have been experiencing please?
Try to find a middle ground by introducing a third value,
`--update-refs=interactive` (and `rebase.updateRefs=interactive`)
which means `--update-refs` when starting an interactive rebase and
`--no-update-refs` otherwise. This option is primarily intended to be
used in the gitconfig, but is also accepted on the command line
for completeness.
I'm not convinced allowing "--update-refs=interactive" on the
commandline improves the usability - why wouldn't I just say
"--update-refs" if I want to update all the branches or
"--no-update-refs" if I don't? I also think supporting
--update-refs=(true|false) is verbose and unnecessary as the user can
already specify their intent with the existing option.
rebase.updateRefs::
- If set to true enable `--update-refs` option by default.
+ If set to true, enable the `--update-refs` option of
+ linkgit:git-rebase[1] by default. When set to 'interactive',
Our existing documentation is inconsistent in how it formats config
values. rebase.backend uses "apply", rebase.rebaseMerges uses
`rebase-cousins` which I think matches other commands and is therefore
what we should use here and rebase.missingCommitCheck uses a mixture
with "warn" and `drop`.
+ only enable `--update-refs` by default for interactive mode
+ (equivalent to `--update-refs=interactive`).
+ This option can be overridden by specifying any form of
+ `--update-refs` on the command line.
@@ -129,10 +129,17 @@ struct rebase_options {
int reschedule_failed_exec;
int reapply_cherry_picks;
int fork_point;
- int update_refs;
+ // UPDATE_REFS_{UNKNOWN,NO,ALWAYS} numeric values must never
+ // change as post-option-parsing code works with {,config_}update_refs
+ // as if they were ints
This feels a bit fragile - why can't we update the code to use the enum?
Also note that comments should be formatted as
/* single line comment */
or
/*
* multi-line
* comment
*/
+ enum {
+ UPDATE_REFS_UNKNOWN = -1,
+ UPDATE_REFS_NO = 0,
+ UPDATE_REFS_ALWAYS = 1,
+ UPDATE_REFS_INTERACTIVE,
+ } update_refs, config_update_refs;
I don't think we want to change the type of `update_refs` as I'm not
convinced we want to change the commandline option.
+static int coerce_update_refs(const struct rebase_options *opts, int update_refs)
I'd be tempted to call this "should_update_refs(...)"
+{
+ /* coerce "=interactive" into "no" rather than "not set" when not interactive
+ * this way, `git -c rebase.updateRefs=yes rebase --update-refs=interactive [without -i]`
+ * will not inherit the "yes" from the config */
Style - see above
+ if (update_refs == UPDATE_REFS_INTERACTIVE)
+ return (opts->flags & REBASE_INTERACTIVE_EXPLICIT)
+ ? UPDATE_REFS_ALWAYS
+ : UPDATE_REFS_NO;
+ return update_refs;
+}
[...]
+static int parse_update_refs_value(const char *value, const char *desc)
+{
+ int v = git_parse_maybe_bool(value);
Style: there should be a blank line after the variable declarations at
the start of a function.
+ if (v >= 0)
+ return v ? UPDATE_REFS_ALWAYS : UPDATE_REFS_NO;
+ else if (!strcmp("interactive", value))
+ return UPDATE_REFS_INTERACTIVE;
+
+ die(_("bad %s value '%s'; valid values are boolean or \"interactive\""), desc, value);
I think we normally say "invalid" or "unknown" rather than "bad" in our
error messages. It'd be clearer just to list the possible values as
there are only three of them.
+ /* coerce --update-refs=interactive into yes or no.
+ * we do it here because there's just too much code below that handles
+ * {,config_}update_refs in one way or another and modifying it to
+ * account for the new state would be too invasive.
+ * all further code uses {,config_}update_refs as a tristate. */
I think we need to find a cleaner way of handling this. There are only
two mentions of options.config_update_refs below this point - is it
really so difficult for those to use the enum?
Given a bit more detail I could be convinced that the config option is
useful but I don't think we should be changing the commandline option.
Best Wishes
Phillip
