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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,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 CEC541F466 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729162AbgAaQQh (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:16:37 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:38372 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727211AbgAaQQg (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:16:36 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id y17so9307205wrh.5 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:16:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=NDz3HBkR5ANUMKcEBIE958ycHDVXC9wwvqns6WCi360=; b=F9JS5FMH1dNkiCmbPo/U1d6J2dRhQPv26g4B/yc/ToaCrcmEFb/XwGAAx19q18n4LX DaWOzkwPLp8CtMc9nlrsK42FJXUp+XDtwvgGHZs5Yy8VVAd0jAqiogL1+ThJdUwEynBB U7Ar42DvKTq9E7LR/lmyMPPYYRNlHVAuiskoOLGk2J//feZIebOhjc7QmKoS/7Ib4zo8 QMIRRxCdD/BuiPzEK/J4Zq8yr/PurR4RxermfEREeLuo0qKqaokQe2+m2iyRaYKPf7Cm 2M+RrGTv1JX5iPYHz9WFv9FX7vSZqcZA+Xs2BbNv9KaIKpw1pue/ZUmOcjihmSpJ2YtO 0ONQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NDz3HBkR5ANUMKcEBIE958ycHDVXC9wwvqns6WCi360=; b=CmCqaSmn0Ig2BEfHovKblZ2AM9kA8MCYc9jH4506x4+aqaJEdxwSUr6a7kASbeL6/a xL0JjB2nx6XHCq7ft7VLeFzWNS+dF4l++jJ8cBuIWpgTo1CIn+jpDeDsfEwP9yff80w2 8ghNGj1e6p/tKMO4aUPkQaPSe6kMszGS1+DvHVQ0Vsr5bgK05mKeDLBgjFYXuEvQ3Dbx Ja2iBZeqcQv7HIzoLL2mqfeSF0O6E4a4zQJbji1dhu9X7lv1TTGhLWstk6I/wvRE17np KqQSrR7DMc54B4k52P8ErGkjM7wxGSkCpVhHeDfoR/y8/IwJ7qrhJssmCo9lBnMrM1SO K9hA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1Rw9PM3q+PmUn6mY13EsCyvOgG4/FCK2GTyFEPfBVNn8qCSk9 CuA9puRQdJbneoFQcz6+URTmyUbE X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw6I9ilKKKmjilW8P4ixzh0fq6wdfsPDCi1yEecgCGvk0oj1oKS9tpxyxJB5ZgkHgWkcdgyuA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4752:: with SMTP id o18mr12417423wrs.330.1580487393333; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from szeder.dev (x4db61755.dyn.telefonica.de. [77.182.23.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z10sm10821957wmk.31.2020.01.31.08.16.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:16:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:16:30 +0100 From: SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Cc: Eric Sunshine , Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: let '--edit-description' default to rebased branch during rebase Message-ID: <20200131161630.GG10482@szeder.dev> References: <20200111123533.1613844-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20200112121402.GH32750@szeder.dev> <20200124224113.GJ6837@szeder.dev> <20200131155228.GF10482@szeder.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:59:15PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:52 PM SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:37:38PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:41 PM SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 08:59:04PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:27:11PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > > Taking a deeper look at the code, I'm wondering it would make more > > > > > > > sense to call wt_status_get_state(), which handles 'rebase' and > > > > > > > 'bisect'. Is there a reason that you limited this check to only > > > > > > > 'rebase'? > > > > > > > > > > > > What branch name does wt_status_get_state() return while bisecting? > > > > > > The branch where I started from? Because that's what 'git status' > > > > > > shows: > > > > > > But am I really on that branch? Does it really makes sense to edit > > > > > > the description of 'mybranch' by default while bisecting through an > > > > > > old revision range? I do not think so. > > > > > > > > > > It's not clear what downside you are pointing out; i.e. why would it > > > > > be a bad thing to be able to set the branch description even while > > > > > bisecting -- especially since `git status` affirms that it knows the > > > > > branch? > > > > > > > > No, during a bisect operation 'git status' knows the branch where I > > > > _was_ when I started bisecting, and where a 'git bisect reset' will > > > > eventually bring me back when I'm finished, and that has no relation > > > > whatsoever to the revision range that I'm bisecting. > > > > > > > > Consider this case: > > > > > > > > $ git checkout --orphan unrelated-history > > > > Switched to a new branch 'unrelated-history' > > > > $ git commit -m "test" > > > > [unrelated-history (root-commit) 639b9d1047] test > > > > <...> > > > > $ git bisect start v2.25.0 v2.24.0 > > > > Bisecting: 361 revisions left to test after this (roughly 9 steps) > > > > [7034cd094bda4edbcdff7fad1a28fcaaf9b9a040] Sync with Git 2.24.1 > > > > $ git status > > > > HEAD detached at 7034cd094b > > > > You are currently bisecting, started from branch 'unrelated-history'. > > > > (use "git bisect reset" to get back to the original branch) > > > > > > > > nothing to commit, working tree clean > > > > > > > > I can't possible be on branch 'unrelated-history' during that > > > > bisection. > > > > > > > > > > > > OTOH, while during a rebase we are technically on a detached HEAD as > > > > well, that rebase operation is all about constructing the new history > > > > of the rebased branch, and once finished that branch will be updated > > > > to point to the tip of the new history, thus it will include all the > > > > commits created while on the detached HEAD. Therefore, it makes sense > > > > conceptually to treat it as if we were on the rebased branch. That's > > > > why it makes sense to display the name of the rebased branch in the > > > > Bash prompt, and that's why I think it makes sense to default to edit > > > > the description of the rebased branch without explicitly naming it. > > > > > > > > With bisect that just doesn't make sense. > > > > > > If the range you are bisecting belongs or lead to the current branch, > > > that still makes sense. And it's probably most of the time. So, I am > > > not sure your objection is valid enough here. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean with "belongs or lead to" a branch. > > > > Do you mean that the range is reachable from the branch that just so > > happened to be checked out when the bisection was started? Well, I > > have over 30 branches from where v2.25.0 is reachable, and all of them > > are obviously bad candidates for editing their descriptions by default > > while bisecting a totally unrelated issue. > > > > > If we take that simple example: > > * (my-branch) > * > * bisect bad > * > * (HEAD) > * bisect good > * > > It makes a lot of sense to me to edit my-branch description by > default, even if the range good-bad happen to exist in other branches. I still don't understand why it would make sense. Furthermore, how do you think you could avoid choosing an obviously bad branch to default to?