mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Wink Saville <>
To: Eric Sunshine <>
Cc: Git List <>,
	Johannes Schindelin <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:31:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Eric Sunshine <> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Wink Saville <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Eric Sunshine <> wrote:
>>> A problem with this approach is that it loses "blame" information. A
>>> git-blame of shows all code in that
>>> file as having arisen spontaneously from thin air; it is unable to
>>> trace its real history. It would be much better to actually _move_
>>> code to the new file (and update callers if necessary), which would
>>> preserve provenance.
>>> Ideally, patches which move code around should do so verbatim (or at
>>> least as close to verbatim as possible) to ease review burden.
>>> Sometimes changes to code are needed to make it relocatable before
>>> movement, in which case those changes should be made as separate
>>> preparatory patches, again to ease review.
>>> As it is, without detailed spelunking, it is not immediately clear to
>>> a reviewer which functions in are
>>> newly written, and which are merely moved (or moved and edited) from
>>> This shortcoming suggests that the patch
>>> series could be re-worked to do the refactoring in a more piecemeal
>>> fashion which more clearly holds the hands of those trying to
>>> understand the changes. (For instance, one or more preparatory patches
>>> may be needed to make the code relocatable, followed by verbatim code
>>> relocation, possibly iterating these steps if some changes depend upon
>>> earlier changes, etc.)
>> Must all intermediate commits continue build and pass tests?
> Yes, not just because it is good hygiene, but also because it
> preserves git-bisect'ability.

That's what I figured.

Anyway, I've played around and my current thoughts are to not create
any new files and
keep git_rebase__interactive and the new
functions in

Doing that will preserve the blame for the existing functions. But if
I do indentation
reformating as I extract functions that will be shared between
and git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges then we still lose the blame
information unless the "-w" parameter is passed to blame. I could choose to
not do the indentation, but that doesn't seem like a good idea.

An alternative is that we don't accept the refactoring. What I'd
probably do is use
the refactored code to figure out a fix for the bug and then back port
the fix to the
existing code.

My opinion is that to not accept "improved" code because we lose blame
is not a good trade off. Of course what I might think is "improved"
others may rightfully
say the refactoring is gratuitous. If that is the case than not doing
the refactoring is the
right solution. I don't see a right or wong here, just a typical
engineering trade off.

Thoughts or other ideas?

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-21  3:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-20 20:45 [RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive Wink Saville
2018-03-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] rebase-interactive: create Wink Saville
2018-03-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] rebase-interactive: create git-rebase--interactive--preserve-merges Wink Saville
2018-03-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] rebase-interactive: refactor git-rebase--interactive to use library Wink Saville
2018-03-20 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive Eric Sunshine
2018-03-20 21:23   ` Wink Saville
2018-03-20 21:47     ` Eric Sunshine
2018-03-21  3:31       ` Wink Saville [this message]
2018-03-21  8:54         ` Eric Sunshine
2018-03-21 17:44           ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: Add git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges Wink Saville
2018-03-21 17:44           ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] " Wink Saville
2018-03-21 19:42             ` Junio C Hamano
2018-03-21 21:49               ` Wink Saville
2018-03-21 22:43                 ` Junio C Hamano

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:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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

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).