Re: Aborting git rebase --edit-todo

[Victor Toni <victor.toni@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> Victor Toni <victor.toni@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> I think the implementor chose the first interpretation.  The "drop"
> >> insn is a relatively recent invention, and back when it was missing
> >> from the vocabulary, I do not think it was possible to say " discard
> >> all the rest" without emptying the todo list, so that design is
> >> understandable.
> >>
> >> Now we have the "drop" verb, the latter interpretation becomes
> >> possible without making it impossible for the user to express the
> >> former.  It might be a good idea to
> >>
> >>  (1) save away the original before allowing --edit-todo to edit,
> >>
> >>  (2) open the editor, and
> >>
> >>  (3) when getting an empty buffer back, go back to step (2) using
> >>      the back-up made in step (1).
> >>
> >> Either way, the todo list editor buffer can have additional comment
> >> instructing what happens when the buffer is emptied.
> >>
> > Personally I would like to see your approach (1,2,3) implemented
> > because it is not destructive. If the user wants to achieve something
> > different he can retry.
>
> Obviously I agree that the approach would be nicer than the status
> quo.  It would not be as trivial as a microproject, but would be a
> good bite-sized starter-task for those aspiring developers who want
> to dip their toes in the water to start hacking on the codebase ;-)
>
Nice try ;) Speaking of toes ... I'm currently involved in another
project from tip to toe.
I would like to come back to your offer sometime next year when I've
completed the other one.
Especially since I'd have to polish up my buried C skills... C didn't
get GC lately, did it? ;)