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=-3.1 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 4E45B1F5A2 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:59:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729233AbgAaP7b (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:59:31 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:52379 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728922AbgAaP7b (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:59:31 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id p9so8460210wmc.2 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 07:59:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U/z1jWJv/ET3B5TCVIe0iTz7pYTrgGsW3DEqXdIA8YU=; b=VJSHtGhp0pw3K2DwEA2foCNGXAz9U0PEMaFWoAn2rlYyhC+tktUu8A27fO2dDI2be5 EtMj/kL6OVKN+4d23Ly1WMiRIu9ms9siPMrMKIb6eG8HDu/3yawGfVUUHgoWKbWQN3QJ MQ0Mo6PDPsp0Gjke9k9mWpFg7doyWHYynkaDSktUY6E4KMkn0G7rHDyn88UZ+m7kmrKN FjK8hgpeVF2gbdjd1fcQbCcnuUm7qLlm39PCHvrOo45UVsRKxrCz2mwpWN3vmu8tdK6J 1m1esUBq9Gl6+xemMHMtbinI8iYUqKyuyVLrc6ooZ4Rn9M9/QFnLhG62rQWDYE4VSyDX ZNQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U/z1jWJv/ET3B5TCVIe0iTz7pYTrgGsW3DEqXdIA8YU=; b=gQZCfCwu0SzI2NZ0MQPRB0ju/KNMu/imWVGbm7yh5GUzww4uA/Xg8GkwwTRYJIGjcA Mi6FUh/G41vFFIddAKmH8wT2qZ4t8CbaS7G4LAP1lKPfBrDeeGiolHKzlmE7TvUhDLGN CTws5ebmPTsL7l75H02hIWuwx2A/2oe0OwKBMS6xNSSTq9GjfFRFkdda1Isa4HnuFIXM 2MrHz4zJYqxno4KyF6tHEBxsrFdK4kR8/BCchtPI85NX0S2mBvKJTVkdvoIfY8+E0mtk ix8jcVbFeaZGQWkSkf8rlhQD1YZcju0bXaNE/XU9260uFeqfFY4NHxXRSUtnX/UX6Qzr xuEg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV6YZaTD18tJ1dM577L6ZufL9tcW5p7p3hc2bJNjYn+lJLZ5e0G Qj5HXMJ+790DoUUtBDvpzBvp7x2i30CzPlg9Hio= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxK02oLIUEL7aH3WRIV35fW7qYwZr2XX99WqVm+7ea+KoIE7103eERN/ugqXDDvLThgOy1sMWPb3yTnuhMDvMQ= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb97:: with SMTP id m23mr12211895wmi.37.1580486367437; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 07:59:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200111123533.1613844-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20200112121402.GH32750@szeder.dev> <20200124224113.GJ6837@szeder.dev> <20200131155228.GF10482@szeder.dev> In-Reply-To: <20200131155228.GF10482@szeder.dev> From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6kgTHVyZWF1?= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: let '--edit-description' default to rebased branch during rebase To: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: Eric Sunshine , Git List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:52 PM SZEDER G=C3=A1bor wr= ote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:37:38PM +0100, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:41 PM SZEDER G=C3=A1bor wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 08:59:04PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM SZEDER G=C3=A1bor 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 m= ore > > > > > > 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 bisectin= g? > > > > > 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 ed= it > > > > > 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 i= t > > > > be a bad thing to be able to set the branch description even while > > > > bisecting -- especially since `git status` affirms that it knows th= e > > > > 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 sens= e > > > 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. --=20 Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau