Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix "rebase -i --root" corrupting root commit

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:14 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> wrote:
> On 30/07/18 10:29, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > It was only after I diagnosed and fixed these bugs that I thought to
> > check 'pu' and discovered that Akinori MUSHA already made a stab[1] at
> > fixing one of the three bugs which this series fixes. Akinori's fix has
> > the somewhat undesirable property that it adds an extra blank line to
> > the end of the script, as Phillip correctly pointed out in review[2].
> > Patch 2/2 of this series has the more "correct" fix, in addition to
> > fixing another bug.
> >
> > Moreover, patch 2/2 of this series provides a more thorough fix overall
> > than Akinori, so it may make sense to replace his patch with this
> > series, though perhaps keep the test his patch adds to augment the
> > strict test of the "author" header added by this series.
>
> Johannes and I have some fixups for Akinori's patch on the branch
> fix-t3403-author-script-test at https://github.com/phillipwood/git

I don't see a branch with that name there. There are a couple "wip"
branches, however, named wip/fix-t3403-author-script-test and
wip/fix-t3404-author-script-test. I'm guessing you wanted me to look
at the former.

> That branch also contains a fix for the bad quoting of names with "'" in
> them. I think it would be good to somehow try and combine this series
> with those patches.

It appears that your patches are fixing issues and a test outside the
issues fixed by my series (aside from the one line inserting the
missing closing quote). As such, I think your patches can be built
atop this series without worrying about conflicts. That would allow
this commit-corruption-bug-fixing series to land without being tied to
those "wip" patches which address lower-priority problems.

> I'd really like to see a single function to read and another to write
> the author script that is shared by 'git am' and 'git rebase -i', rather
> than the two writers and three readers we have at the moment. I was
> thinking of doing that in the longer term, but given the extra bug
> you've found in read_author_script() maybe we should do that sooner
> rather than later.

Agreed. That seems a reasonable long-term goal but needn't hold up
this series which addresses very real bugs leading to object
corruption.