* GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
@ 2014-02-26 8:04 Michael Haggerty
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael Haggerty @ 2014-02-26 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git discussion list; +Cc: Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
I just submitted the idea below as a pull request [1] to the GSoC ideas
page, but I'd like to get some mailing list feedback first that the idea
is sensible...
And, is there anybody else willing to volunteer as a mentor for this
project? (There should be at least two.)
Michael
[1] https://github.com/git/git.github.io/pull/5
## Line options for `git rebase --interactive`
One of the more powerful features in Git is the command `git rebase
--interactive`, which allows recent commits to be reordered, squashed
together, or even revised completely. The command creates a todo list
and opens it in an editor. The original todo list might look like:
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
pick c0ffeee The oneline of the next commit
pick 01a01a0 This change is questionable
pick f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
pick deadbab The oneline of the commit after
The user can edit the list to make changes to the history, for example
to
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
squash f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
exec make
edit c0ffeee The oneline of the next commit
pick deadbab The oneline of the commit after
This would cause commits `deadbee` and `f1a5c00` to be squashed
together into one commit followed by running `make` to test-compile
the results, delete commit `01a01a0` altogether, and stop after
committing commit `c0ffeee` to allow the user to make changes.
It would be nice to support more flexibility in the todo-list commands
by allowing the commands to take options. Maybe
* Convert a commit into a merge commit:
pick -p c0ffeee -p e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
* After squashing two commits, add a "Signed-off-by" line to the
commit log message:
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
squash --signoff f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
or GPG-sign a commit:
pick --gpg-sign=<keyid> deadbee Implement feature XXX
* Reset the author of the commit to the current user or a specified
user:
pick --reset-author deadbee Implement feature XXX
pick --author="A U Thor <author@example.com>" deadbab The oneline of
the commit after
The goal of this project would be (1) to add the infrastructure for
handling options on todo-list lines, and (2) implement some concrete
options. A big part of the difficulty of this project is that `git
rebase --interactive` is implemented via a sparsely-commented shell
script. Adding comments and cleaning up the script as you go would be
very welcome.
- Language: sh
- Difficulty: medium
- Possible mentors: Michael Haggerty
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 8:04 GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options Michael Haggerty
@ 2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-02-26 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Haggerty
Cc: git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:04:30AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> It would be nice to support more flexibility in the todo-list commands
> by allowing the commands to take options. Maybe
>
> * Convert a commit into a merge commit:
>
> pick -p c0ffeee -p e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
particularly interesting to me[1]).
I'd worry a little that it is not a summer's worth of work, but I
suspect there are other parts of rebase--interactive that could use
attention once the student is familiar with the code.
> * After squashing two commits, add a "Signed-off-by" line to the
> commit log message:
>
> pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
> squash --signoff f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
>
> or GPG-sign a commit:
>
> pick --gpg-sign=<keyid> deadbee Implement feature XXX
>
> * Reset the author of the commit to the current user or a specified
> user:
>
> pick --reset-author deadbee Implement feature XXX
> pick --author="A U Thor <author@example.com>" deadbab The oneline of
> the commit after
Your first example would need some commit-tree magic, I think. But could
you implement these two with:
pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
exec git commit --amend --signoff --reset-author
? You could even alias the "amend" command to "exec git commit --amend",
like:
amend --signoff --reset-author
Maybe that is unnecessarily unfriendly to the user, though.
-Peff
[1] The one feature I would like in this vein is that editing the title
in the instruction-sheet would modify the commit message of the
relevant commit. For some reason I try to do this every few weeks,
but of course the changes are just thrown away.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
@ 2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-26 11:42 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 14:55 ` Tay Ray Chuan
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael Haggerty @ 2014-02-26 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
On 02/26/2014 11:52 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:04:30AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to support more flexibility in the todo-list commands
>> by allowing the commands to take options. Maybe
>>
>> * Convert a commit into a merge commit:
>>
>> pick -p c0ffeee -p e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
>
> This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
> possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
> be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
> particularly interesting to me[1]).
>
> I'd worry a little that it is not a summer's worth of work, but I
> suspect there are other parts of rebase--interactive that could use
> attention once the student is familiar with the code.
>
>> * After squashing two commits, add a "Signed-off-by" line to the
>> commit log message:
>>
>> pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
>> squash --signoff f1a5c00 Fix to feature XXX
>>
>> or GPG-sign a commit:
>>
>> pick --gpg-sign=<keyid> deadbee Implement feature XXX
>>
>> * Reset the author of the commit to the current user or a specified
>> user:
>>
>> pick --reset-author deadbee Implement feature XXX
>> pick --author="A U Thor <author@example.com>" deadbab The oneline of
>> the commit after
>
> Your first example would need some commit-tree magic, I think. But could
> you implement these two with:
>
> pick deadbee Implement feature XXX
> exec git commit --amend --signoff --reset-author
>
> ? You could even alias the "amend" command to "exec git commit --amend",
> like:
>
> amend --signoff --reset-author
>
> Maybe that is unnecessarily unfriendly to the user, though.
The whole point is to make these things easy. But I have to admit that
"amend" would be another nice todo-list command. Once the
infrastructure is there to handle options, it would be no big deal to
add an "amend" command with a "--signoff" option and offer the same
"--signoff" option on other, existing commands.
> [1] The one feature I would like in this vein is that editing the title
> in the instruction-sheet would modify the commit message of the
> relevant commit. For some reason I try to do this every few weeks,
> but of course the changes are just thrown away.
Given that commit messages can be more than one line long, a feature
like this would be confusing, I think, and perhaps subtly encourage
people to limit their commit messages to a single line, which would be a
bad thing. Plus, until now such edits were thrown away, so there are
backwards compatibility problems if we suddenly start preserving such edits.
But using the other ideas discussed here one could do
pick -m "New log message" <sha1>
or
amend -m "Revised log message"
It also might be reasonable, if the user edits the title in a way that
does not simply delete characters at the end, to do an implicit "reword"
with the edited title stuck in at the first line (and maybe the original
title following it, commented out with "#").
Another, more wonkish idea I though of would be
pick --tree=<treeish> <sha1>
to force the tree of the commit to be set to that of the specified
<treeish> while keeping the commit metadata from <sha1>. What would
this be useful for? When swapping two commits, it is often the case
that conflicts have to be resolved twice. But the tree should be the
same after both commits are applied, regardless of the order in which
they are applied. So one could change
pick aaaaaaa
pick bbbbbbb
to
pick bbbbbbb
pick --tree=bbbbbbb aaaaaaa
On the other hand, maybe "git rebase --interactive" should have the
intelligence to do this automatically whenever the set of commits
pre/post rewriting is identical, possibly if a "--reorder-only" option
is used.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
@ 2014-02-26 11:42 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-02-26 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Haggerty
Cc: git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:14:11PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > [1] The one feature I would like in this vein is that editing the title
> > in the instruction-sheet would modify the commit message of the
> > relevant commit. For some reason I try to do this every few weeks,
> > but of course the changes are just thrown away.
>
> Given that commit messages can be more than one line long, a feature
> like this would be confusing, I think, and perhaps subtly encourage
> people to limit their commit messages to a single line, which would be a
> bad thing.
Right, I was assuming it would just modify the subject-line, and leave
the rest intact (I often want to use it to just replace one word or fix
a typo, since I am starting right at it in the insn sheet).
> Plus, until now such edits were thrown away, so there are
> backwards compatibility problems if we suddenly start preserving such edits.
Good point. For true interactive use it probably wouldn't be that big a
deal, but people do weird things with GIT_EDITOR and auto-munging the
list of commits. A heuristic like "is there any message there at all"
might work, as you mentioned, but heuristics make me nervous.
> But using the other ideas discussed here one could do
>
> pick -m "New log message" <sha1>
Yeah, that would work, though you have to retype the whole thing, which
is potentially annoying (clever use of your editor can pull it over from
the other side, but it's not super-friendly).
Something like:
pick --subject <sha1> <modified message...>
would be simpler.
> amend -m "Revised log message"
That would replace the whole message, which I definitely don't want (and
would encourage bad habits).
> Another, more wonkish idea I though of would be
>
> pick --tree=<treeish> <sha1>
>
> to force the tree of the commit to be set to that of the specified
> <treeish> while keeping the commit metadata from <sha1>.
I think there's a large foot-shooting capacity there. Any commit you've
reordered from after the "--tree" to before it will mysteriously get
undone in the "--tree" commit. E.g.:
pick aaaaaaa
pick bbbbbbb
pick ccccccc
being done as:
pick ccccccc
pick bbbbbbb
pick --tree=bbbbbbb aaaaaaa
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
@ 2014-02-26 14:55 ` Tay Ray Chuan
2014-02-26 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tay Ray Chuan @ 2014-02-26 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King
Cc: Michael Haggerty, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> I'd worry a little that it is not a summer's worth of work, but I
> suspect there are other parts of rebase--interactive that could use
> attention once the student is familiar with the code.
It might be worthwhile to check for prior projects that were a "bag"
of small projects that were accepted into GSoC. I don't have the time
to do this right now, I'll get to it at a later time.
--
Cheers,
Ray Chuan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-26 14:55 ` Tay Ray Chuan
@ 2014-02-26 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-27 7:48 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-27 18:10 ` Brandon McCaig
4 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-02-26 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King
Cc: Michael Haggerty, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:04:30AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to support more flexibility in the todo-list commands
>> by allowing the commands to take options. Maybe
>>
>> * Convert a commit into a merge commit:
>>
>> pick -p c0ffeee -p e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
>
> This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
> possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
> be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
> particularly interesting to me[1]).
I actually had a completely opposite reaction to the above one. It
took considerable mental effort to decipher what that "pick -p ..."
line was trying to do, and I am not absolutely sure if I understand
what it is trying to do enough to rewrite it to an equivalent
"inconvenient" sequence of "edit and another git command".
> [1] The one feature I would like in this vein is that editing the title
> in the instruction-sheet would modify the commit message of the
> relevant commit. For some reason I try to do this every few weeks,
> but of course the changes are just thrown away.
Every time I thought about this one, I get stopped after realizing
that the title line is only a small part of the log message.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-26 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2014-02-27 7:48 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-27 18:10 ` Brandon McCaig
4 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael Haggerty @ 2014-02-27 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
On 02/26/2014 11:52 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:04:30AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to support more flexibility in the todo-list commands
>> by allowing the commands to take options. Maybe
>>
>> * Convert a commit into a merge commit:
>>
>> pick -p c0ffeee -p e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
>
> This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
> possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
> be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
> particularly interesting to me[1]).
Don't forget that any of the parent commits might have been rewritten
due to the earlier lines of the rebase script. Rebase has to map the
specified SHA-1s to their new versions. So I don't think that this one
would be very practical to implement by hand.
Actually I think it is awkward to have to specify all of the parent
commits. I did it this way to make it look like commit-tree's -p
option. But any usage of this feature that *doesn't* include the
immediately preceding commit as a parent would probably be broken anyway
(for example, the preceding commit would become unreachable).
So maybe a better UI would be
pick --merge=e1ee712 deadbab The oneline of the commit after
(even though this precludes the short form "-m" because it is already
taken by --message).
On the other hand, allowing arbitrary parents with "-p" might be a way
to make "rebase --interactive" work half-sanely with parts of history
that *already* include merge commits. The todo list that rebase
prepares for the user would already include these "-p" lines.
What I like about allowing options in todo lists is that is that it
opens up a lot of possibilities for "git rebase --interactive" that, I
think, have previously been hampered by the restriction that commands
have to consist of a single word, and (until now) have to be abbreviable
to a single distinct letter.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-27 7:48 ` Michael Haggerty
@ 2014-02-27 18:10 ` Brandon McCaig
2014-02-28 12:52 ` Jeff King
4 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Brandon McCaig @ 2014-02-27 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King
Cc: Michael Haggerty, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
> possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
> be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
> particularly interesting to me[1]).
This strikes me as over-complicating the rebase --interactive
interface. Particularly all of the ideas expressed later on about
merge commits and resetting authors, etc. It seems like you're trying
to define a whole new command set (i.e., API) for Git, but within the
context of rebase --interactive. I think it would be hard to document
this, and hard to learn it, and harder still to remember it (even
though it would obviously try to mirror the existing Git command API).
I honestly didn't know (or forgot) about the e"x"ec command, but that
to me says that I can automate whatever I want without needing to make
any changes to the rebase --interactive interface. The advantage to
this is that we don't need to reinvent the square wheel that is the
Git command API. We can just exec git ... with the exact same command
set and options that we're already familiar with. No doubts about
syntax or disparities, etc.
I don't think it's my place to resist these changes; particularly
because I don't think they'd necessarily affect me, except for maybe
the proposed automatic merge support, but if that SOMEHOW actually
works reliably and sensibly (i.e., to allow you to rebase over merges
without losing the merges) I'm not sure I'd complain. That said, I do
think that this is probably a bad direction and shouldn't be rushed
into too fast. It seems like it would be a complicated thing to do,
more complicated to do well, and I'm not sure that it would really
improve things any. I'm not sure that users would prefer to use this
over "e"diting and/or e"x"ecing instead. Plus where do you draw the
line as far as which features to reproduce? How do you prevent scope
creep?
> [1] The one feature I would like in this vein is that editing the title
> in the instruction-sheet would modify the commit message of the
> relevant commit. For some reason I try to do this every few weeks,
> but of course the changes are just thrown away.
When I do this I am usually half asleep and it's a good reminder to
pay attention to what I'm doing. I'd probably rather Git *error* when
I change the subject line and tell me why it doesn't make sense and
recommend "r"eword instead.
Regards,
--
Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@gmail.com> <bamccaig@castopulence.org>
Castopulence Software <https://www.castopulence.org/>
Blog <http://www.bamccaig.com/>
perl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }.
q{Vg qbrfa'\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.};
tr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-27 18:10 ` Brandon McCaig
@ 2014-02-28 12:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-28 14:03 ` Michael Haggerty
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-02-28 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon McCaig
Cc: Michael Haggerty, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Brandon McCaig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > This seems like a reasonable feature to me. All of your examples are
> > possible with an "e"dit and another git command, but the convenience may
> > be worth it (though personally, most of the examples you gave are
> > particularly interesting to me[1]).
>
> This strikes me as over-complicating the rebase --interactive
> interface.
Sorry, I missed an important word in my final sentence. It should have
been "the examples you gave are NOT particularly interesting to me".
> Particularly all of the ideas expressed later on about
> merge commits and resetting authors, etc. It seems like you're trying
> to define a whole new command set (i.e., API) for Git, but within the
> context of rebase --interactive. I think it would be hard to document
> this, and hard to learn it, and harder still to remember it (even
> though it would obviously try to mirror the existing Git command API).
I agree some of the examples are getting esoteric. Things like --signoff
and --reset-author are a fairly straightforward convenience feature:
they save you from writing "exec git commit --amend --signoff".
For others that cannot currently be done with a simple option to "git
commit", I think a reasonable first step would be to implement them
there. For example, you cannot currently "git commit --tree". Maybe that
is too insane and low-level an option for "git commit". But if it is,
then it is almost certainly too insane and low-level for a rebase
instruction.
For others from Michael's list, I expect they may not make _sense_
outside of a rebase. That is, they are operations whose input is not a
single commit, but a sequence of commits (e.g., if you had some
high-level command that allowed swapping two commits without having to
redo the conflicts from the second commit). Those ones might make sense
to exist as part of rebase and nowhere else (but then they are not
necessarily just options, but rather new instructions).
> That said, I do think that this is probably a bad direction and
> shouldn't be rushed into too fast.
I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not. But I think it is looking
decreasingly like a good GSoC project.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-28 12:52 ` Jeff King
@ 2014-02-28 14:03 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-03-11 1:37 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael Haggerty @ 2014-02-28 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King
Cc: Brandon McCaig, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
On 02/28/2014 01:52 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> [...]
> Sorry, I missed an important word in my final sentence. It should have
> been "the examples you gave are NOT particularly interesting to me".
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Brandon McCaig wrote:
>> Particularly all of the ideas expressed later on about
>> merge commits and resetting authors, etc. It seems like you're trying
>> to define a whole new command set (i.e., API) for Git, but within the
>> context of rebase --interactive. I think it would be hard to document
>> this, and hard to learn it, and harder still to remember it (even
>> though it would obviously try to mirror the existing Git command API).
>
> I agree some of the examples are getting esoteric. Things like --signoff
> and --reset-author are a fairly straightforward convenience feature:
> they save you from writing "exec git commit --amend --signoff".
>
> For others that cannot currently be done with a simple option to "git
> commit", I think a reasonable first step would be to implement them
> there. For example, you cannot currently "git commit --tree". Maybe that
> is too insane and low-level an option for "git commit". But if it is,
> then it is almost certainly too insane and low-level for a rebase
> instruction.
>
> For others from Michael's list, I expect they may not make _sense_
> outside of a rebase. That is, they are operations whose input is not a
> single commit, but a sequence of commits (e.g., if you had some
> high-level command that allowed swapping two commits without having to
> redo the conflicts from the second commit). Those ones might make sense
> to exist as part of rebase and nowhere else (but then they are not
> necessarily just options, but rather new instructions).
>
>> That said, I do think that this is probably a bad direction and
>> shouldn't be rushed into too fast.
>
> I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not. But I think it is looking
> decreasingly like a good GSoC project.
I guess I misread the sentiment of the mailing list, because I merged
this idea into the list about two hours ago.
I'm not claiming that all of the sub-ideas are good, but I do think that
some of them are, and that the general idea of allowing options on
todo-list commands would make it possible for them to be more expressive
while *avoiding* making them a lot harder to learn. I would rather give
the user a few options that can be used consistently on multiple
commands than have to invent a new command for each new feature. And I
think that the line-oriented nature of the todo list makes
pick --signoff 1234abc Blah blah
easier to understand (and easier to type) than
pick 1234abc Blah blah
amend --signoff
let alone
pick 1234abc Blah blah
exec git commit --amend --signoff
I also like the idea of a non-broken "git rebase --interactive
--preserve-merges" via a todo option "-p" or something similar.
But if you think that even the proposal's simpler sub-ideas are
controversial, then let me know and I will delete the idea from the list
again. I don't want a GSoC student to have to fight battles of my own
creation :-)
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-02-28 14:03 ` Michael Haggerty
@ 2014-03-11 1:37 ` Jeff King
2014-03-11 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2014-03-11 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Haggerty
Cc: Brandon McCaig, git discussion list, Martin von Zweigbergk,
Johannes Schindelin
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:03:52PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not. But I think it is looking
> > decreasingly like a good GSoC project.
>
> I guess I misread the sentiment of the mailing list, because I merged
> this idea into the list about two hours ago.
Yeesh, sorry to be so slow on the reply to this. It floated to the
bottom of my "to respond" list.
> But if you think that even the proposal's simpler sub-ideas are
> controversial, then let me know and I will delete the idea from the list
> again. I don't want a GSoC student to have to fight battles of my own
> creation :-)
I'd say keep it at this point. I think there _are_ some good ideas here,
and part of a project is figuring out what is good. And part of the role
of the mentor is applying some taste. There are probably students who
would be a good fit, and students who would not. That is true for just
about every project, of course, but I think this one is just a little
trickier than some.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options
2014-03-11 1:37 ` Jeff King
@ 2014-03-11 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-03-11 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King
Cc: Michael Haggerty, Brandon McCaig, git discussion list,
Martin von Zweigbergk, Johannes Schindelin
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I'd say keep it at this point. I think there _are_ some good ideas here,
> and part of a project is figuring out what is good. And part of the role
> of the mentor is applying some taste.
Amen to that. I hope we have enough mentor-candidates with good
taste, though ;-)
> There are probably students who would be a good fit, and students
> who would not. That is true for just about every project, of
> course, but I think this one is just a little trickier than some.
Perhaps.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-11 19:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-02-26 8:04 GSoC idea: allow "git rebase --interactive" todo lines to take options Michael Haggerty
2014-02-26 10:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 11:14 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-26 11:42 ` Jeff King
2014-02-26 14:55 ` Tay Ray Chuan
2014-02-26 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-02-27 7:48 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-02-27 18:10 ` Brandon McCaig
2014-02-28 12:52 ` Jeff King
2014-02-28 14:03 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-03-11 1:37 ` Jeff King
2014-03-11 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
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).