From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD5C1F461 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726794AbfF1WJI (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:09:08 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:61022 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726916AbfF1WJH (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:09:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B915272945; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:09:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Xy60zlsXQKipgwOkIHIhhGGiHI8=; b=jMHMkC bp5i+3Q6nCUyM71gnRI3rjdPT004Y529/SbWqzOG84VJHpscfOhKzjnOdlk07d9w Acyd+S+lFw6Soc6ybGgqf8QBO+VFCzv1GObXgI5jF5KZYoRaWhMz1Xw5loe/ZYIu hphatCQteEkIl8w9QR6Gqj+mPZ1harT9ox794= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=R9Aqf6wtk+6SX0y27pMGPiAFDozF6CZa rHzx0+gMxMQ7LD6H5DFDgxSgUjMitJDhcW+ZMAxJCy9aszsQ/uzEgGUiacGstSzg t/cFZgUZBaScMw7qlbDNLCdJE0kE1QKF8uvEbi3RlvDNzWxKhEMaDKViKquoi1nJ zlgMkSNdp3Q= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B026772944; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:09:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA52C72941; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:08:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Vas Sudanagunta Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Let rebase.reschedulefailedexec only affect interactive rebases References: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:08:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Phillip Wood's message of "Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:44:07 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 54B92EE8-99F1-11E9-B7C8-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >>> I wonder if users understand that '-x' is "an interctive rebase". >>> The documentation can read both ways, and one of these may want to >>> be clarified. >>> >>> -x , --exec >>> ... >>> This uses the --interactive machinery internally, but it can >>> be run without an explicit --interactive. >>> >>> Is it saying that use of interactive machinery is an impelementation >>> detail the users should not concern themselves (in which case, the >>> message given to "die()" above is misleading---not a new problem >>> with this patch, though)? Is it saying "-x" makes it plenty clear >>> that the user wants interactive behaviour, so the users do not need >>> to spell out --interactive in order to ask for it (in which case, >>> "die()" message is fine, but "... internally, but ..." is >>> misleading)? >> >> Hmm. What would you think about: >> >> die(_("--reschedule-failed-exec requires --exec or --interactive")); I was leaning towards admitting that the use of the interactive machinery in "-x" is not merely an implementation detail and fixing the documentation, leaving the die() message in the patch as-is. But ... > I was wondering about requiring --exec with --reschedule-failed-exec > rather than checking is_interactive() as that would be easier to > understand. ... I find this a reasonable way to think about the issue. The option only matters when we are doing "--exec". And the usual convenience measure we'd use, i.e. with --reschedule-failed-exec we consider that we are implicitly in --exec mode, would not work because there is no default "command" to be executed. > One potential problem is if someone has an alias that > always sets --reschedule-failed-exec but does not always add --exec to > the command line. Such a use case would be hitting this die() already without this topic, wouldn't it? In which case we can say there is no "someone" with such an alias.