Re: Small rerere in rebase regression

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Mon, 23 May 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
> 
> > I also come to the conclusion that die_with_patch shouldn't have to
> > have a call to "git rerere". die_with_patch can be called after "git
> > cherry-pick", "git merge", "git commit", all of which have their own
> > rerere() invocation.
> >
> > However, calling "git rerere" after a failed "git commit" may be
> > destructive: it would record a resolution even though the commit has
> > not be completed. Think of an squash commit being aborted because the
> > user notices an error in the last minute. If that error is in a
> > conflict resolution, that wrong resolution would be recorded.
> 
> So, the behaviour change you observed uncovered a small bug in "rebase
> -i" that was covered by the old limitation of "rerere" that refrained
> from creating preimage when there already is one?
> 
> I think removing the call to "git rerere" there is a safe and sensible
> thing regardless, but perhaps authors of "rebase -i" had their own
> reasons.  I dunno (it is unlikely I'll have a chance to do blame and
> digging today).

I introduced this in ecfe72ff658124ea301ec7b2bb8b987689303685, as a (late)
answer to f131dd492f098f9f565df93df13e35c734284590.

Hannes, could you quickly test whether
https://github.com/dscho/git/tree/interactive-rebase calls rerere twice,
too? (Please call interactive rebase with the GIT_USE_REBASE_HELPER=true
to avoid running the interactive rebase twice.)

I have a hunch that it does not call rerere twice, which would be a nice
bonus in that patch thicket (so far, I split the patches into seven patch
series, in addition to the ones I already sent, still have to do one
thorough review before I'll continue submitting them).

Ciao,
Dscho