From: George Spelvin <lkml@SDF.ORG>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org, lkml@sdf.org
Subject: Re: Feature request: rebase -i inside of rebase -i
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 17:41:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200404174116.GB11944@SDF.ORG> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2004041417420.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
I'm just trying to make the point that guardrails on "git rebase
--nested" which don't exist on the more powerful and dangerous "git
rebase --edit-todo" are a case of installing a high-security lock on a
screen door.
If you can come up with something that works for both, then great. But
going to significant trouble (especially in terms of design complexity and
legacy burden; I'm not worrying about SMOP) for a special-case solution
that only works for one is a waste of effort.
Both, or neither. Just one is bad design.
Regarding the semantics, consider the following case:
* Initial branch history is O-A-B-C-D
* I initially "git rebase A"
* Then realize that I made a mistake and "git rebase --nested A^"
* I reverse the order of the commits to D-C-B-A
* The rebase continues, and I successfully pick D and C.
(remaining commands are "pick B" and "pick A"
* Then I "git rebase --abort".
What state should I expect to be returned to?
(Without separately abortable nested rebases, the state after the nested
rebase is exactly the same as if I'd used "git rebase A^" in the first
place, which doesn't seem like a terribly bad thing.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-04 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-20 22:30 Feature request: rebase -i inside of rebase -i George Spelvin
2020-03-20 22:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-20 23:35 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-21 10:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-21 17:56 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-25 19:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-26 0:18 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-28 14:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-03-28 16:30 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-31 0:00 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-31 10:57 ` Philip Oakley
2020-03-31 13:36 ` Phillip Wood
2020-04-01 16:43 ` Philip Oakley
2020-04-07 15:54 ` Phillip Wood
2020-04-04 12:17 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-04-04 12:39 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-04-04 17:41 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2020-04-06 10:40 ` Sebastien Bruckert
2020-04-06 15:24 ` George Spelvin
2020-04-07 9:16 ` Sebastien Bruckert
2020-04-07 19:03 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-30 14:01 ` Philip Oakley
2020-03-30 18:18 ` George Spelvin
2020-03-30 21:53 ` Philip Oakley
2020-03-21 8:47 ` Johannes Sixt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200404174116.GB11944@SDF.ORG \
--to=lkml@sdf.org \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).